(An h/t to Kossack don midwest and yet another h/t to Marcy Wheeler for bringing this story to our attention.)
The mostly unnoticed/ignored Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) story, which appeared on their website a little over 48 hours ago, regarding Section 213 of the Patriot Act, and the directly-related metastasis of law enforcement issuance of “sneak and peek” search warrants over the past 13-plus years, which were born within said paragraphs in that piece of Orwellian legislation immediately after 9/11, is certainly one of the most shocking reports that I’ve read about our surveillance state, to date.
Interestingly, it’s also a topic that’s received relatively scant notice throughout the MSM, and within this community, at least over the past 48 hours.
Of course, if you “don’t give two shitsTM” about the fact that U.S. law enforcement has been legally enabled, since 9/11, to rifle through your personal possessions and toss your personal spaces for virtually any reason, including simple suspicion of committing a misdemeanor (i.e.: “conspiring” to engage in illegal/unauthorized political protest comes to mind), behind your back, and without even letting you know about it until said law enforcement damn well feels like informing you of same—the current language in the law uses the word, “indefinitely,” when describing at what point targeted individuals for these searches will be notified by law enforcement about them--then I’d suggest you stop reading this post right now.
Still here?
Here’s the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU’s) synopsis regarding the myths versus the realities of practical implementation of sneak and peek warrants in our society, today…
Myth: The codification of delayed notice warrants in the Patriot Act “brought national uniformity to a court-approved law enforcement tool that had been in existence for decades.” [4]
Reality: The Patriot Act’s “sneak and peek” provision is about lowering standards for sneak and peek warrants, not imposing uniformity. The two circuit courts that upheld the use of delayed notice warrants imposed a very similar rule, including a presumptive seven-day limit on delaying notice. Delayed notice search warrants, or “sneak-and-peak” warrants, allow investigators to enter an individual’s business or dwelling to obtain limited and specific information for an investigation and notifying the individual of the search at a later date. Section 213 of the Patriot Act overturns the seven-day rule and instead allows notice of search warrants to be delayed for an indefinite “reasonable time.” Section 213 authorizes a judge to delay notice upon a showing of reasonable cause instead of probable cause to believe that there will be an adverse result if notice is given to the target of the search warrant...
Here are some facts and figures gleaned by the EFF from recent reports published by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, for the years
2011,
2012, and
2013…
…First, the numbers: Law enforcement made 47 sneak-and-peek searches nationwide from September 2001 to April 2003. The 2010 report reveals 3,970 total requests were processed. Within three years that number jumped to 11,129. That's an increase of over 7,000 requests. Exactly what privacy advocates argued in 2001 is happening: sneak and peak warrants are not just being used in exceptional circumstances—which was their original intent—but as an everyday investigative tool.
Second, the uses: Out of the 3,970 total requests from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010, 3,034 were for narcotics cases and only 37 for terrorism cases (about .9%). Since then, the numbers get worse. The 2011 report reveals a total of 6,775 requests. 5,093 were used for drugs, while only 31 (or .5%) were used for terrorism cases. The 2012 report follows a similar pattern: Only .6%, or 58 requests, dealt with terrorism cases. The 2013 report confirms the incredibly low numbers. Out of 11,129 reports only 51, or .5%, of requests were used for terrorism. The majority of requests were overwhelmingly for narcotics cases, which tapped out at 9,401 requests…
And, last but not least, here’s the lead-in to Sunday’s EFF story…
Peekaboo, I See You: Government Authority Intended for Terrorism is Used for Other Purposes
By Mark Jaycox
Electronic Frontier Foundation
October 26, 2014
The Patriot Act continues to wreak its havoc on civil liberties. Section 213 was included in the Patriot Act over the protests of privacy advocates and granted law enforcement the power to conduct a search while delaying notice to the suspect of the search. Known as a “sneak and peek” warrant, law enforcement was adamant Section 213 was needed to protect against terrorism. But the latest government report detailing the numbers of “sneak and peek” warrants reveals that out of a total of over 11,000 sneak and peek requests, only 51 were used for terrorism. Yet again, terrorism concerns appear to be trampling our civil liberties.
Throughout the Patriot Act debate the Department of Justice urged Congress to pass Section 213 because it needed the sneak and peak power to help investigate and prosecute terrorism crimes “without tipping off terrorists.” In 2005, FBI Director Robert Mueller continued the same exact talking point, emphasizing sneak and peek warrants were “an invaluable tool in the war on terror and our efforts to combat serious criminal conduct.”…
…
…What do the reports reveal? Two things: 1) there has been an enormous increase in the use of sneak and peek warrants and 2) they are rarely used for terrorism cases….
What’s not directly stated in this post? Many thousands of sneak and peek warrants have been initiated by U.S. law enforcement over the past 13+ years (and, especially over the past three-plus years) for matters
other than drug-related and terrorism cases.
# # #