Local law experts discussed the pros and cons of the U.S.Patriot Act Tuesday at The University of Memphis Cecil C. HumphreysLaw School.
Bruce Kramer, head of the Memphis ACLU, spoke in opposition tothe Patriot Act, and Timothy Discenza, Assistant U.S. attorneyargued for the act.
"The Patriot Act, itself, passed after 9/11 and has increasedpenalties for terrorist crimes," said Steven J. Mulroy, U of M lawprofessor and debate moderator.
Congress enacted the Patriot Act Oct. 26, 2001, at the requestof President George W. Bush in reaction to the terror attacks onWashington, New York and Pennsylvania. The Justice Department wasgiven more authority to use international and domestic surveillanceof U.S. citizens within its jurisdiction.
"I don't like the Patriot Act," said Dustin Stubbs, second-yearlaw student. "There needs to be an alternative to it, but I'm notsure how that can happen."
The debate focused on what Kramer and Discenza consider to bethe greatest concerns pertaining to the Patriot Act -- thedefinition of domestic terrorism and sneak-and-peak searches.
"I believe it's patriotic to question government and descentwhen the government exceeds its bounds," Kramer said. "The ACLUdoes not object to many of the provisions within the Patriot Act,but a handful give great concern to us about the government."
Discenza also said he has a questionable view on governmentpolicy.
"I distrust the government, but you have to make up your mind onwhat the act is about -- don't be influenced," Discenza said. "Readabout it (the Patriot Act) and be concerned -- you need to be asstudents."
The legislation has created a new crime, Kramer said,underscoring his points by taking lines directly from the PatriotAct and calling them intrusive to U.S. citizens.
However, Discenza said, the act "does not diminish or expandnormal (government) investigations."
Kramer and Discenza also sparred over the legality ofsneak-and-peak searches. Sneak-and-peak searches allow lawenforcement agencies to enter a house or business without theowner's knowledge.
Although a warrant is necessary, the act lowered previousstandards for obtaining a warrant.
"The sneak-and-peak searches are able to get very privateinformation on financial, medical and educational records," Kramersaid.
During the search, agents can seize property, take photos andreview computer hard drives, according to the act. Law enforcementagents can also insert a device in to computer that will log everykeystroke, both on and off of the Internet. Agents may laterretrieve information through the device and download everything anindividual has done on the computer. These measures can be takenwithout the person's knowledge.
"Sneak-and-peak requires probable cause as with all search andseizures," Discenza said, adding that investigated persons areimmediately notified or a judge must agree for a later warning ofthe search.
However, notification could take up to 90 days and, in somecases, up to a year, Kramer said.
To obtain a warrant, according to the act, law enforcementagents only have to certify that the information they wish toobtain is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Some law students said Kramer and Discenza did not have enoughtime to debate the topic thoroughly.
"I already knew all the information they debated about," saidLance Pope, second-year law student. "It was interesting to seewhat they were the most concerned about."
Todd Siroky, also a second-year law student, agreed with Popethat there was no new information debated but he enjoyed thediscussion.
"Both speakers were effective, but they really needed severalhours to debate this kind of topic," Siroky said.
