NEW YORK A federal judge has struck down a key surveillance provision of the USA
Patriot Act, ruling that it broadly violates the Constitution by giving federal
authorities unchecked powers to obtain private information.
.The ruling, issued on Wednesday by Judge Victor Marrero of federal court in
Manhattan, was the first to uphold a challenge to the surveillance sections of
the act, which was adopted in October 2001 to expand the powers of the federal
government in national security investigations.
.The ruling assails one piece of the law, finding that it violates both free
speech and unreasonable search protections and is likely to provide fuel for
other court challenges.
.The ruling was made in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union
against a kind of subpoena created under the act known as a national security
letter.
.Such letters require Internet service companies to provide personal information
about their subscribers and barred them from disclosing to anyone that they had
received the subpoena.
.Such subpoenas could be issued without court review, under provisions that
seemed to bar those who received it from discussing it with a lawyer.
.Marrero vehemently rejected the provision, saying that it was unique in U.S. law
in its "all-inclusive sweep" and had "no place in our open society."
.He ordered that his ruling would not take effect for 90 days, to give the Bush
administration time to appeal.
.Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, called the ruling a "stunning
victory against John Ashcroft's Justice Department, " referring to the U.S.
attorney general.
.He said it would reinforce arguments the group made in a separate challenge in
Michigan to another surveillance statute of the act. Congress is debating
additions to the anti-terror law to reflect the recommendations of the Sept. 11
commission.

NEW YORK A federal judge has struck down a key surveillance provision of the USA
Patriot Act, ruling that it broadly violates the Constitution by giving federal
authorities unchecked powers to obtain private information.
.The ruling, issued on Wednesday by Judge Victor Marrero of federal court in
Manhattan, was the first to uphold a challenge to the surveillance sections of
the act, which was adopted in October 2001 to expand the powers of the federal
government in national security investigations.
.The ruling assails one piece of the law, finding that it violates both free
speech and unreasonable search protections and is likely to provide fuel for
other court challenges.
.The ruling was made in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union
against a kind of subpoena created under the act known as a national security
letter.
.Such letters require Internet service companies to provide personal information
about their subscribers and barred them from disclosing to anyone that they had
received the subpoena.
.Such subpoenas could be issued without court review, under provisions that
seemed to bar those who received it from discussing it with a lawyer.
.Marrero vehemently rejected the provision, saying that it was unique in U.S. law
in its "all-inclusive sweep" and had "no place in our open society."
.He ordered that his ruling would not take effect for 90 days, to give the Bush
administration time to appeal.
.Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, called the ruling a "stunning
victory against John Ashcroft's Justice Department, " referring to the U.S.
attorney general.
.He said it would reinforce arguments the group made in a separate challenge in
Michigan to another surveillance statute of the act. Congress is debating
additions to the anti-terror law to reflect the recommendations of the Sept. 11
commission.

NEW YORK A federal judge has struck down a key surveillance provision of the USA
Patriot Act, ruling that it broadly violates the Constitution by giving federal
authorities unchecked powers to obtain private information.
.The ruling, issued on Wednesday by Judge Victor Marrero of federal court in
Manhattan, was the first to uphold a challenge to the surveillance sections of
the act, which was adopted in October 2001 to expand the powers of the federal
government in national security investigations.
.The ruling assails one piece of the law, finding that it violates both free
speech and unreasonable search protections and is likely to provide fuel for
other court challenges.
.The ruling was made in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union
against a kind of subpoena created under the act known as a national security
letter.
.Such letters require Internet service companies to provide personal information
about their subscribers and barred them from disclosing to anyone that they had
received the subpoena.
.Such subpoenas could be issued without court review, under provisions that
seemed to bar those who received it from discussing it with a lawyer.
.Marrero vehemently rejected the provision, saying that it was unique in U.S. law
in its "all-inclusive sweep" and had "no place in our open society."
.He ordered that his ruling would not take effect for 90 days, to give the Bush
administration time to appeal.
.Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, called the ruling a "stunning
victory against John Ashcroft's Justice Department, " referring to the U.S.
attorney general.
.He said it would reinforce arguments the group made in a separate challenge in
Michigan to another surveillance statute of the act. Congress is debating
additions to the anti-terror law to reflect the recommendations of the Sept. 11
commission.