Laura Cluff

Pols 1010
Spring 2016
Argumentative Paper

The War on Terror is Abolishing our Fourth Amendment Rights.

In 1789, James Madison purposed amendments to the constitution in front of congress.

These amendments became known as the Bill of Rights. Although all of the amendments are
important to the citizens of America, the Fourth Amendment is one that is consistently being
challenged in court. The Fourth Amendment was ratified from Madisons original version, reads
as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Search and Seizure, 2014). James Madison
proposed this amendment to help protect the American Citizens. He used information from
previous eighteenth century cases as basis for a provision that would help protect ordinary lawobeying citizens. Since September 11, 2001, and President Bushs War on Terror, American
civil liberties have been restricted and abused. Our rights against illegal and unnecessary
searches and seizures, given to us by the Fathers of our country, are slowly being abolished.

What is the War on Terror? It is a multi-faceted effort to prevent the spread of terrorist
ideologies and activities (Rich, 2016). It was framed after the terrorist attacks on September 11,
and meant to extend military operations and intelligence operations throughout the world.
September 11, and another terrorist attack that occurred, led to the changes in foreign and
domestic policy, and the drafting of the Patriot Act. It also formed the Department of Homeland
Security. These two overhauls were designed to improve the countrys surveillance and
intelligence operations (Rich, 2016). What price is America paying as a result of the anti-terror
legislation? Critics claim that we are taking a very costly blow to our civil liberties, and it is too
high of a price to pay for curbing the spread of terrorism (Rich, 2016).
The Patriot Act, also known as the Anti-Fourth Amendment Patriot Act, is said to be
unconstitutional. Brandon Mayfield, a notable victim of the law, said, When legislation is
written that waters down the standard of the Fourth Amendment, it is not the guilty who suffer,
but the innocent. (Eddlem, 2011). Many have heard of Brandon Mayfield. He was a Former
U.S. Army Lieutenant and lawyer, who became a victim under the Patriot Act. Mayfield was
falsely accused of a bombing in Madrid, and later arrested as a material witness. Under the Act,
they were able to unjustly imprison him for two weeks. During this time, he lost his law practice
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to apprehend all of his confidential files of his
clients.
Another victim of the Act is an American citizen Abdullah al-Kidd, who was an Islam
convert. His arrest was deemed as a major success in the fight against terrorists. He was held
in Federal prison for 16 days, chained next to a toilet.
What exactly has the War on Terror and the Patriot Act allowed the government to do?
In December of 2005, the New York Times reported that President Bush had authorized the

National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct domestic wiretaps (Wiretapping and the War,
2006). These wiretaps were done without court warrants, and doing so violated the
Constitutional protection given to us in the Fourth amendment. The government secretly
listening to telephone conversations has been around since the invention of the telephone. In
1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allowed agencies to
authorize wiretaps without warrants. The Patriot Act in 2001, sparked a new round of concern
over security. This amended the FISA, and helped to facilitate surveillance on suspected
terrorists. It also allowed for technical aspects designed to record numbers dialed and record
information about incoming communications (Wiretapping and the War, 2006).
In addition to the wiretapping, FBI agents began to demand financial and telephone
records of United States Citizens. By using national security letters (NSL), they were able to
improperly gather information on Americans. The FBI was able to compel companies into
giving personal information to the government (Patriot Acts, 2007).
Another issue that demeans our rights, is the sneak and peek. Congress authorized a
delayed notice search warrants. Investigators are able to go in to suspects homes and not inform
them, weeks and sometimes months later. This small part of the Patriot Act spear into the heart
of the Fourth Amendment and the promise of privacy and sanctity of the home. Along with
covert searches, come covert seizures, or sneak and steal. Not only is the government allowing
people in to our homes, they are allowing them to take items. This technique carries additional
risks. When investigators perform a covert seize, they often make it seem like there has been a
burglary (Witmer-Rich, 2014). Sir Edward Coke warned, in 1682, if a mans house could be
searched while he was confined without being told the cause, they will find cause enough
(Cuddihy, 2009).

Many have argued that GPS monitoring, obtaining cell phone information, email and
other electronic data, is not covered under the Fourth Amendment. There is no disputing that
covert searches and seizures violates our rights. It raises concerns about the privacy and sanctity
of our home. Not only is it violating our rights, it is a waste of vital resources and it gives too
much authority to the government.
Another Fourth amendment issue is unlawful imprisonment, or imprisonment without
due process. November 2004, in Montana, a man by the name of Sergio Manzo-Jurado and five
co-workers from El Salavdor went and stood by a fence to watch a high school football game.
At the end of the game, when they had turned to leave, they were surrounded by Border Patrol
Agents. Manzo-Jurado was arrested. The court of appeals ruled that the agents had violated the
Fourth Amendment. There was no reasonable suspicion that lead to the agents surrounding the
truck. An officer cannot rely solely on generalization that, if accepted, would cast suspicion on
large segments of the law-abiding populations Judge Carlos Bea wrote in the decision (Friel,
2006).
Law enforcement and anti-terrorist officials are pushing congress and the courts to
narrow the Fourth Amendment protections. They claim that by doing so they can ensure that
lawbreakers are punished and terrorists acts are thwarted. National security and law and order
are gutting in to the safeguards that are nearly as old as the Republic. Although the boundaries
of the amendment are unsettled, how far do we allow the government to go? How much power
do we allow them to have? John Wesley Hall Jr, a criminal defense lawyer, said, Anything the
government wants us to do with the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable
searches and seizures will mean twistinghammering, if need bethe entire concept of
reasonable into anything the government wants to justify its action, (Friel, 2006)

The majority of Americans dont expect to get caught up in the legal battles and
entanglements of the Fourth Amendment. They are not criminals, terrorists or illegal
immigrants. However, the idea of freedom has long included being free from the constant and
inappropriate snooping of our government. In the United States v. Di Re, the Court explained
that the forefathers, after consulting the lessons of history, designed our Constitution to place
obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance, which they seemed to think was in
greater danger to a free people than the escape of some criminals from punishment. (United
States v. De Ri, 1948.

References
Andrew, C. W. (2016). Homeland Security and Civil Liberties.
Cuddihy, W. (n.d.). The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning.
Eddlem, T. (2011). Anti-Fourth Amendment Patriot Act. New American, p17-21.
Friel, B. (2006). Protections under Siege? National Journal-Washington D.C., 44-45.
law.jrank.org. (2014). Retrieved from http://law.jrank.org/pages/2014/Search-Seizure-FourthAmendment-origins-text-history
Patriot Act's critics can say: We Told You So. (2007, April 03). Northwest Florida Daily News.
Rich, A. K.-R. (2016, January). War on Terror. Salem Press Encyclopedia, p. 5p.
The Woman who Knows the NSA's Secrets. (2013, October 4). Newsweek Global, pp. p40-44.
(1948). United States V. De Ri.
Wiretapping and the War on Terrorism. (2006). Backgroung Informatin Summaries, p3.
Witmer-Rich, J. (2014). The Fatal Flaws of the "Sneak and Peak" Statute and How To Fix It. Case Western
Reserve Law Review, p121-179.