IP: Another big bite out of the 4th amendment?

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> From: "bdolan" <bdolan () usit net>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
> Subject: Another big bite out of the 4th amendment?
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 19:23:18 -0400
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
>
> A random thing which arrived in my e-mailbox today.
>
> Know anything about this?
>
> Brad
>
>
> Fourth Amendment Sneak Attack
> Reno's outrageous Secret Searches measure.
>
> By Dave Kopel, of the Independence Institute
>
> The Reno Department of Justice is very good at being sneaky. The DOJ's
> lobbyists are on the verge of successfully sneaking into law a
> provision
> which will authorize federal agents to stealthily enter people's homes,
> search the homes, and not tell anyone.
>
> The Secret Searches measure is so outrageous that it would have no
> chance of
> being enacted as a bill on its own, when subjected to public scrutiny
> and
> debate. So instead, the DOJ has nestled the Secret Search item deep
> inside a
> long bill dealing with methamphetimines. The measure is further
> disguised
> with the innocuous title of "Notice Clarification."
>
> Subject to virtually no public discussion, the Secret Searches item has
> already passed the Senate, hidden inside the methamphetimine giant S.
> 486.
> Next week, the House Judiciary Committee will take up H.R. 2987, the
> House
> version of the Senate bill, which also contains the buried clause on
> Secret
> Searches (section 301). The federal bankruptcy reform bill (which has
> passed
> both houses, and is currently in a conference committee) likewise has
> the
> hidden Secret Searches language.
>
> If the Secret Searches provision became law, it would apply to all
> searches
> conducted by the federal government, not just searches involving
> methamphetimines or bankruptcy.
>
> When conducting searches, federal agents are currently required to
> announce
> their presence before entering, and to provide an inventory of any
> items
> they take. Because the person whose home or business is being searched
> knows
> about the search, he can exercise his Fourth Amendment rights, and make
> sure
> that the police have a properly-issued search warrant. He can also see
> if
> the search is being conducted according to the warrant's terms   i.e.,
> the
> police are searching only for items authorized by the warrant, they are
> searching the right address, etc.
>
> But under a Secret Searches law, federal police could enter a person's
> home
> surreptitiously, conduct a search, and not tell the homeowner until
> months
> later.
>
> Even months later, the police would not have to provide an inventory of
> "intangible" items which were taken in a search. So if the police
> entered
> your home secretly, and photocopied your diary or made a copy of your
> computer hard disk, they would never have to inform you of their
> actions.
>
> Should the Secret Searches item be deleted from the methamphetimine and
> bankruptcy bills, it is likely that Clinton will try to sneak the item
> into
> a gigantic budget bill, during the Congressional Republicans' annual
> fall
> appropriations surrender. Take note: In a previous Congress, Clinton
> was
> able to obtain authority for warrantless wiretaps   which had been
> defeated
> after public debate earlier in the year   by hiding the authority in
> the
> year's omnibus budget bill.
> >