Impact on Amendment

Impact on Amendment

Intent of the Patriot Act

The Patriot Act was drafted after the 9/11 attack in 2001. After terrorism, the US Congress passed laws that gave the government permission to make surveillance on the public as a way to detect and thwart terror threats. The government was granted the power to search private property without the owner noticing it. Moreover, it can spy on people or even obtain their details from the institution’s records without consent. According to Schrop (865), FBI officials can issue National Security Letters to collect data about an individual from companies. All these efforts were made to help the government agencies track, trace, and monitor suspicious activities. Despite its good intentions of keeping the public safe, the Patriot Act has been considered to violate several amendments of the constitution.

Impact on the 4th Amendment

The 4th Amendment requires government officials to obtain search warrants from courts before intruding on any private property. Thus, it prohibits them from making searches and seizures which are not warranted because they are deemed illegal and unreasonable (Schrop 849). Alternatively, they can indicate a probable cause that a particular person committed a crime. Without the probable cause or a warrant, a search or seizure cannot even stand in the law court. With that rationale, the Patriot Act bypassed or violated this amendment by granting the government power to make searches without warrant. Both physical and electronic surveillance is used to anyone in search of evidence that can help the government trace terror.

Impact on the 5th Amendment

The 5th Amendment protects people from self-incrimination. That means a person may decide to remain silent and seek a lawyer or the right to decide the jury to hear the case (Legal Information Institute). Therefore, a defendant cannot be forced to speak if unwilling. Additionally, the government cannot punish a person because it just wants to do so. Due diligence in the indictment process must be followed (Verver 16). Again, the client-attorney communication is not admissible in court as evidence. Contrary, the Patriot Act can use such client-attorney conversation as evidence, where representation is eliminated and self-incrimination is used. Again, the 5th Amendment supports that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The Patriot Act violates it because a person is always guilty until proven innocent.

Impact on the 6th Amendment

The 6th Amendment warrants a person to receive a speedy and fair judgment. In addition, the judgment should be arrived at without unnecessary delay. To promote justice, the accused person has the right to an impartial jury. The person can also confront the witnesses. The Patriot Act violates the amendment by providing mandatory detention of suspects (justice.gov). This violates the provisions of a speedy judgment because an accused person may stay in the detention for some time until the prosecution is completed.

Conclusion

Undeniably, the Patriot Act was drafted in good faith. The 9/11 terror attack left the world with shock. Thus, the Act was meant to assist the government to make surveillance on people in an attempt to identify any suspicious activity. However, it violates several amendments among them the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. By granting the government the power to make surveillance and collect information without people’s consent, it violates the 4th, Amendment. Similarly, by making suspects guilty till proven innocent and using attorney-client communication as evidence, it interferes with the due indictment process as well as eliminate representation, thereby promoting self-incrimination. Finally, by detaining terror suspects, the 6th Amendment, which seeks to ensure speedy judgment, is violated.