Talk:USA PATRIOT Act, Title VII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USA PATRIOT Act, Title VII was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: July 20, 2006

[edit] To do

Here's the current plan:

1. Research the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to figure out what it does (proving harder than expected).

   What I've read so far seem to point to it being wiretapping legislature. However, that seems to be confined to its Title III, and may not be the whole scope of the law. I'll be making a trip into my local law library (since I'm not having much luck on the 'net) and hopefully pull up some more information. Blackcap (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

   I was looking for this also, and managed to track down the following link to the text of the Act. It's bloody hard to find the original text! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

   Wicked, thanks! I'd found a copy as well, but I'd like to find some commentary on it if I can, hence the trip to the law library. I've had no luck at all with Google and the normal repositories of legislative info (I couldn't find a damn thing on THOMAS as THOMAS only covers back to the 70s, or so I remember). It doesn't seem to have generated the same amount of info as more controversial laws. Blackcap (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Provide a clearer, referenced, intro on what this title's modifications on aforesaid act actaully do.
3. Make the changes actually readable, rather than being legalese gibberish.

Wish me luck. Blackcap (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've previously done some research on the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and would be happy to tell you as much as I can about it. Is there anything in particular you want to know? Title III does indeed make most forms of electronic wiretappying illegal with some notable exceptions. I don't recall what the other 4 titles do off hand, but I have the info at home.--Dekkanar 19:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Info on the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968(The Act)

The Act is divided into 5 titles, each of which addresses a separate crime control issue. As a result, the titles have litle, if any, impact on each other. As such, if you are interested in say, Title IV of the Act, reading Title III is pointless.

Title I: Title I authorizes the creation of a 3 member board within the Department of Justice. I think the board is intended to appropriate and oversee the use of funds for the purpose of training the FBI and other agencies in riot control and prevention.

Title II: Added new sections to the US penal code and changed standards for 1-the admissibility of voluntary confesions into federal courts, 2-the ability of federal courts to rule on the admisibiity of voluntary confessions in state courts, and 3-the admissibility of eyewitness testimony. It also changes another part of the US code to prevent prisoners from using Habeus Corpus procedures as an alternative to directly appealing their conviction.

Title III: Prohibits all wiretaping of phone or other electronic comunications. The ban is pretty comprehensive and covers almost all types of eavesdropping involving electronic devices. There are some exceptions though. Several exceptions are written into the statute and these include: wiretapping done by law enforcement officials under the authority of a warrant, telephone company employees for purposes of checking to make sure that the phone lines are actually working, and if either party to the conversation consents to the interception. In addition to this, courts have created or read into the statute several exceptions that may or may not exist in the statute. One is a spousal immunity exception. Some courts have found that spouses may engage in wiretapping the other because they are married. This exception has been rejected by a majority, but not all, of the federal appeals courts because it has little if any basis in the statutory language. Another exception that has found more acceptance amongst federal courts is the vicarious consent exception. In this exception, if a parent believes that their minor child is in some danger, they may consent to recording a conversation their child is having on the phone on behalf of their child. Because parents routinely make decisions for their minor children, this exception has been pretty widely accepted. Each of these exceptions has various requirements that a court examines so that they are not expanded too widely and eliminate the original prohibition on wiretapping altogether.

Title IV: This title is designed to prevent minors from acquiring firearms and prohibits most firearm dealers from selling a gun to any person they know or have reason to believe is under the age of 21.

Title V: Contains a legislative separability clause. I don't know what that is, but it is given no mention at all, so I don't think it had any effect on existing laws.

My information on Title III comes from personal study and on the other titles from the Senate Report on the 1968 bill. If you would like to visit a law library and read the senate report yourself(this is probably the most efficient way gain a general understanding of the Act), the citation for the report is: Sen. Rpt. 90-1097 (Apr. 29, 1968) (reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2112)

That should make it very easy for a law librarian to help you find the report.

If there is anything else that you would like to know about the Act, I would be willing to do more research. When I was studying Title III it was not in relation to terrorism in any way, so I have not investigated how the Patriot Act affected Title III, although I do believe Title III is the part of the Act that the Patriot Act modified.--Dekkanar 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to cover the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act 2005 (Title VII of Public Law 109-177) embedded into the PATRIOT Act renewal. It's apparently the reason why USA residents can no longer purchase pseudoephedrine (e.g. Sudafed that actually works) without performing a charade as if it were a prescription medication.

[edit] GA nomination

I am failing this because of coverage (lack of breadth on topic). I'd rate this as a stub. It needs expansion. Rlevse 01:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)