of curiosity, according to the Fourth Amendment.
Allowing such action would surely lead
to
harassment.
The officer can remain alert tor violations
by
not specifi-
cally looking
for,
but
by
noticing open bottles of alcohol,
the smell of marijuana, or disturbing sounds or cries
in
the
car.
If any of these violations occur, the officer has
probable cause to search. According
to
the USA
PATRI-
OT Act, such protective measures of
an
individual's
rights do not apply and
an
officer may search a car with-
out probable cause; the officer might claim that the
search may have reasonable cause, since
no
one can
rule out the possibility that the search could have led
to
information connected to foreign intelligence.
Reasonable cause, as opposed to probable cause, only
requires the
opinion of the official. Thus, discretion
means that the official may search out of curiosity.
Consequently, despite the amount of the time the courts
have invested
in
trying to protect the individual's rights
against unlawful searches and seizures, the USA
PATRI-
OT Act began to persistently chip away at those individ-
ual rights within weeks. The Fourth Amendment does
not intend to interfere with law enforcement; instead,
it
simply requires that the actions not come from the dis-
cretion of a "biased" source, such as the Executive
branch alone. Additionally, monitoring attorney-client
communications also violates the Fourth Amendment.
Determining privacy requires a reasonable expectation
of privacy that society will recognize. Societies,
as
well
as the courts, recognize the reasonable expectation of
privacy. Therefore, the intrusion of expected privacy
without probable cause or a warrant demonstrates the
unconstitutionality of the USA
PATRIOT
Act.
Another intrusion
on
expected privacy occurs with
the government's potential eavesdropping
on
the com-
munications between attorneys and their clients, a viola-
tion of the attorney-client privilege protected under the
Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment of the
U.S.
Constitution states, "no person shall be held to .answer
for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless
on
a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except
in
cases arising
in
the land or naval forces, or
in
the Militia,
when
in
actual service
in
time of War or public danger.
..
nor shall
be
compelled
in
any criminal case
to
be
a wit-
ness against himself, nor
be
deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of
law."
As
the Founders'
words illustrate, the Fifth Amendment provides protec-
tions against self-incrimination, which the USA
PATRIOT
Act violates. For example, if communications between
an
attorney and a client can possibly incriminate the
client and used against them
in
court, then that demon-
strates self-incrimination, as does requiring the lawyer
to
testify against his or her client. Likewise, any legal
research, such as notes and interviews collected
by
an
attorney
in
preparation for a defense, falls under the
68
"work product doctrine,'' which makes the information
inadmissible
in
court (Boatright 2). A client may plead
the Fifth; however, doing so with a client's attorney
in
order
to
protect him or herself against self-incrimination
would mean having
no
representation at all. This also
violates the Constitution. Under the Fifth Amendment,
one does not lose one's rights until a court finds him or
her guilty. Interferences with legal representation of
criminal proceedings undermine the Fifth Amendment
and presume a client guilty until proven innocent, which
violates one of the pillars of criminal laws and the protec-
tion of the innocent.
Due process also requires fundamental fairness.
Contrarily, the USA
PATRIOT
Act impedes
on
the right
to
assistance
by
an
attorney and interferes with the right to
properly prepare for the charges that clients face
through the monitoring of their communications. The
Sixth Amendment provides that
"in
all
criminal prosecu-
tions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a public and
speedy trial.
..
and
to
have the Assistance of Counsel for
his defense." The obligation to preserve the accused's
right to seek
an
attorney also extends to having conver-
sations between attorney and client without government
intrusions. The Supreme Court established precedence
by
holding that government interferences with the
accused's right to counsel violated the Sixth Amendment
in
cases like Geders
v.
United States, 425
U.S.
853
(1975). The ratification of the USA
PATRIOT
Act after
the terrorist attacks, which the President and the
Attorney General both supported, erodes the rights of
the accused to have
an
attorney's help
in
preparing for a
defense because monitoring the communications
between
an
attorney and a client directly impedes the
ability of counsel
to
obtain the necessary information
needed to properly represent their client.
The Attorney General obviously does not have a
problem promoting the violation of several Amendments.
However, when it comes to the Second Amendment
-which permits the right
to
bear arms- Ashcroft claims
that examining records of the National Rifle Association
(NRA) to track terrorists violates the Constitution. But,
monitoring attorney-client communications, wiretapping,
and searching civilians without warrants or probable
cause does not fit Ashcroft's criteria of unconstitutional.
Ashcroft's reasoning clearly illustrates that his political
agenda takes precedence over national security.
Perhaps
all
of the violations and enactments have noth-
ing to do with national security. This would make sense,
since none of the violations to the Constitution really
help
to
track or capture terrorists.
So
far,
the changes
have only trampled
on
the American's Constitutional
rights and increased the powers of the Executive
branch. The Bush Administration continues
to
use these
---
-