<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/national/30patriot.html?oref=regi"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"
size=3>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/national/30patriot.html?oref=regi</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Judge Strikes Down Section of Patriot Act<BR>By
JULIA PRESTON<BR><BR>Published: September 30, 2004<BR><BR><BR>Correction
Appended<BR><BR>A federal judge struck down an important surveillance provision
of the antiterrorism legislation known as the USA Patriot Act yesterday, ruling
that it broadly violated the Constitution by giving the federal authorities
unchecked powers to obtain private information.<BR><BR>The ruling, by Judge
Victor Marrero of Federal District Court in Manhattan, was the first to uphold a
challenge to the surveillance sections of the act, which was adopted in October
2001 to expand the powers of the federal government in national security
investigations.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Published: September 30,
2004<BR><BR><BR>Correction Appended<BR><BR>A federal judge struck down an
important surveillance provision of the antiterrorism legislation known as the
USA Patriot Act yesterday, ruling that it broadly violated the Constitution by
giving the federal authorities unchecked powers to obtain private
information.<BR><BR>The ruling, by Judge Victor Marrero of Federal District
Court in Manhattan, was the first to uphold a challenge to the surveillance
sections of the act, which was adopted in October 2001 to expand the powers of
the federal government in national security investigations.<BR><BR>The ruling
invalidated one piece of the law, finding that it violated both free speech
guarantees and protection against unreasonable searches. It is thought likely to
provide fuel for other court challenges.<BR><BR>The ruling came in a case
brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against a kind of subpoena created
under the act, known as a national security letter. Such letters could be used
in terrorism investigations to require Internet service companies to provide
personal information about subscribers and would bar them from disclosing to
anyone that they had received a subpoena.<BR><BR>Such a subpoena could be issued
without court review, under provisions that seemed to bar the recipient from
discussing it with a lawyer.<BR><BR>Judge Marrero vehemently rejected that
provision, saying that it was unique in American law in its "all-inclusive
sweep" and had "no place in our open society."<BR><BR>He ordered that his ruling
would not take effect for 90 days, to give the Bush administration time to
appeal.<BR><BR>Anthony Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., called the
ruling a "stunning victory against John Ashcroft's Justice Department." He said
it would reinforce arguments the group had made in a separate challenge in
Michigan to another surveillance section of the act.<BR><BR>The ruling does not
affect many sections of the act, which is more than 350 pages long, that give
the government enhanced powers to control immigration, conduct searches and
investigate financial support for terrorism. It comes as Congress is debating
additions to the Patriot Act.<BR><BR>Bush administration officials have said the
Patriot Act is a foundation of their efforts to prevent terrorist attacks
against Americans.<BR><BR>The civil liberties group's suit was brought on behalf
of John Doe, an Internet provider company that received a national security
letter from the F.B.I., but was barred under its terms from revealing its name.
Until the judge revealed the facts of the case in his ruling, the civil
liberties group had been reluctant to state publicly that it was representing a
company that had received a national security letter.<BR><BR>Such subpoenas
would prevent Internet companies from telling customers that the F.B.I. had
collected their information.<BR><BR>The companies were required to provide
customers' names, addresses, credit card data and details of their Internet use.
It is not clear how many of the subpoenas have been issued in the last three
years. But a list obtained by the A.C.L.U. covering the 14 months after the act
was passed was six pages long, although the companies' names were blacked
out.<BR><BR>Judge Marrero said he hoped to strike "the most sensitive judicial
balance" between national security and basic freedoms. He was aware, he wrote,
that the Sept. 11 attacks had created "an atmospheric pressure, a heavy weight
that, foglike, has loomed densely" over the case.<BR><BR>He said the subpoena
violated the Fourth Amendment because it did not allow for review by a court. He
called it "an ominous writ" that the F.B.I. issued "in tones sounding virtually
as a biblical commandment." He said he worried that anyone who received a
national security letter, except "the most mettlesome and undaunted" targets,
would feel barred from consulting a lawyer.<BR><BR>In January, Judge Audrey B.
Collins of Federal District Court in Los Angeles struck down a clause of the act
that barred providing material support for terrorist groups, saying it was too
vague and broad.<BR><BR>In its case in Michigan, the A.C.L.U. is challenging a
section of the act that allows the F.B.I. to obtain a court order to force any
organization to turn over tangible evidence. Before the act, investigators
seeking to obtain concrete evidence had to convince the court that the
organizations or people were spies or terrorists for a foreign
government.<BR><BR><BR>Correction: Oct. 1, 2004, Friday <BR><BR>An article
yesterday about a judge's ruling to invalidate some federal surveillance powers
referred incorrectly to a subpoena statute that was struck down. While the
statute - authorizing the use of subpoenas known as national security letters -
was amended by the antiterrorism legislation called the USA Patriot Act, it was
not created under that act. It was enacted in 1986 and amended several times,
including once in October 2001 under the Patriot Act, to expand its application.
The judge's ruling analyzed and struck down the statute as a whole, including
provisions that predated the Patriot Act.<BR><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Barbara
Gualtieri</FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>