One Nation Under God; Indivisible

A positive right to life would require others act to save the life of someone who would otherwise die.

2008-05-13T06:56:00.000-07:00

Actuary "Ezekial 25:17 - The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequites of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he that shepherds the weak from the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Within the philosophy of human rights, some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between negative and positive rights. According to this view, a positive right imposes a moral obligation on a person to do something for someone, while a negative right merely obliges others to refrain from interfering with someone's attempt to do something.

To state the difference more formally, if 'A' has a negative right against 'B' then 'B' must refrain from acting in a way that would prevent 'A' from doing 'x'. If 'A' has a positive right against 'B', then 'B' must assist 'A' to do 'x' if 'A' is not able to do 'x' without that assistance. For example, a negative right to life would require others to refrain from killing a person. A positive right to life would require others act to save the life of someone who would otherwise die.

Negative rights may be used to justify political rights such as freedom of speech, property, habeas corpus, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, a fair trial, freedom from slavery and the right to bear arms. Positive rights may be used to justify public education, health care, social security or a minimum standard of living.

In the 'three generations' account of human rights, negative rights are often associated with 'first-generation rights', while positive rights are associated with 'second-generation rights'.

Main article: History of the USA PATRIOT Act

The Patriot Act has made a number of changes to U.S. law. Key acts changed were the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Act itself came about after the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon. After these attacks, Congress immediately started work on several proposed anti-terrorist bills, before the Justice Department finally drafted a bill called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. This was introduced to the House as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October 12.[2] It was then introduced into the Senate as the USA Act of 2002 (S. 1510) [3] where a number of amendments were proposed by Senator Russ Feingold,[4][5][6][7] all of which were passed. The final bill, the USA PATRIOT Act was introduced into the House on October 23 and incorporated H.R. 2975, S. 1510 and many of the provisions of H.R. 3004 (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act).[8] It was vehemently opposed by only one Senator, Russ Feingold, though Senator Patrick Leahy also expressed some concerns.[9] However, not all parts of the Act are seen in this light, with many parts being seen as necessary by both detractors and supporters.[10][11][12] The final Act included a number of sunsets which were to expire on December 31, 2005.

Due to its controversial nature, a number of bills were proposed with which to amend the Patriot Act. These included the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act,[13] the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act,[14] and the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE),[15] none of which passed. In late January 2003, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, Charles Lewis, published a leaked draft copy of an Administration proposal titled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.[16] This highly controversial document was quickly dubbed "PATRIOT II" or "Son of PATRIOT" by the media and organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[17] The draft, which was circulated to 10 divisions of the Department of Justice,[18] proposed to make further extensive modifications to extend the USA PATRIOT Act.[19] It was widely condemned, although the Department of Justice claimed that it was only a draft and contained no further proposals.[20]

[edit] Titles

[edit] Titles I and X: Miscellaneous provisions

Main articles: USA PATRIOT Act, Title I and USA PATRIOT Act, Title X

Title I authorizes measurements to enhance the ability of domestic security services to prevent terrorism. The title established a fund for counter-terrorist activities and increased funding for the FBI's Technical Support Center. The military was authorized to provide assistance in some situations that involve weapons of mass destruction when so requested by the Attorney General. The National Electronic Crime Task Force was expanded, along with the President's authority and abilities in cases of terrorism. The title also condemned the discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans that happened soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The impetus for many of the provisions came from earlier bills, for instance the condemnation of discrimination was originally proposed by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) in an amendment to the Combatting Terrorism Act of 2001, though in a different form. It originally included "the prayer of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington in a Mass on September 12, 2001 for our Nation and the victims in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist hijackings and attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania reminds all Americans that 'We must seek the guilty and not strike out against the innocent or we become like them who are without moral guidance or direction.' "[21] Many believed the act would allow the government to surveil people such as political figures and opposition leaders.Further condemnation of racial vilification and violence is also spelled out in Title X, where there was condemnation of such activities against Sikh Americans, who were mistaken for Muslims after the September 11th terrorist attack.[22]

Title X created or altered a number of miscellaneous laws that didn't really fit into the any other section of the Patriot Act. Hazmat licenses were limited to drivers who pass background checks and who can demonstrate they can handle the materials.[23] The Inspector General of the Department of Justice was directed to appoint an official to monitor, review and report back to Congress all allegations of civil rights abuses against the DoJ.[24] It amended the definition of "electronic surveillance" to exclude the interception of communications done through or from a protected computer where the owner allows the interception, or is lawfully involved in an investigation.[25] Money laundering cases may now be brought in the district the money laundering was committed or where a money laundering transfer started from.[26] Aliens who committed money laundering were also prohibited from entering the U.S.[27] Grants were provided to first responders to assist them with responding to and preventing terrorism.[28] US$5,000,000 was authorized to be provided to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to train police in South and East Asia.[29] The Attorney General was directed to commission a study on the feasibility of using biometric identifiers to identify people as they attempt to enter the United States, and which would be connected to the FBI's database to flag suspected criminals.[30] Another study was also commissioned to determine the feasibility of providing airlines names of suspected terrorists before they boarded flights.[31] The Department of Defense's was given temporary authority to use their funding for private contracts for security purposes.[32] The last title also created a new Act called the Crimes Against Charitable Americans Act[33] which amended the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act to require telemarketers who call on behalf of charities to disclose the purpose and other information, including the name and mailing address of the charity the telemarketer is representing.[34] It also increased the penalties from one year imprisonment to five years imprisonment for those committing fraud by impersonating a Red Cross member.[35]

[edit] Title II: Surveillance procedures

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

Title II is titled "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures" and covers all aspects of the surveillance of suspected terrorists, those suspected of engaging in computer fraud or abuse, and agents of a foreign power who are engaged in clandestine activities. It primarily made amendments to FISA and the ECPA, and many of the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act reside in this title. In particular, the title allows government agencies to gather "foreign intelligence information" from both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, and changed FISA to make gaining foreign intelligence information the significant purpose of FISA-based surveillance, where previously it had been the primary purpose.[36] The change in definition was meant to remove a legal "wall" between criminal investigations and surveillance for the purposes of gathering foreign intelligence, which hampered investigations when criminal and foreign surveillance overlapped.[37] However, that this wall even existed was found by the Federal Surveillance Court of Review to have actually been a long-held misinterpretation by government agencies. Also removed was the statutory requirement that the government prove a surveillance target under FISA is a non-U.S. citizen and agent of a foreign power, though it did require that any investigations must not be undertaken on citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment.[38] The title also expanded the duration of FISA physical search and surveillance orders,[39] and gave authorities the ability to share information gathered before a federal grand jury with other agencies.[40]

The scope and availability of wiretap and surveillance orders were expanded under Title II. Wiretaps were expanded to include addressing and routing information to allow surveillance of packet switched networks[41] — EPIC objected to this, arguing that it does not take into account email or web addresses, which often contain content in the address information.[42] The Act allowed any district court judge in the United States to issue such surveillance orders[41] and search warrants for terrorism investigations.[43] Search warrants were also expanded, with the Act amending Title III of the Stored Communications Access Act to allow the FBI to gain access to stored voicemail through a search warrant, rather than through the more stringent wiretap laws.[44]

Various provisions allowed for the disclosure of electronic communications to law enforcement agencies. Those who operate or own a "protected computer" can give permission for authorities to intercept communications carried out on the machine, thus bypassing the requirements of the Wiretap statute.[45] The definition of a "protected computer" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) and broadly encompasses those computers used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including ones located outside the United States. The law governing obligatory and voluntary disclosure of customer communications by Cable companies was altered to allow agencies to demand such communications under U.S.C. Title 18 provisions relating to the disclosure of electronic communications (chapter 119), pen registers and trap and trace devices (chapter 206) and stored communications (121), though it excluded the disclosure of cable subscriber viewing habits.[46] Subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers were expanded to include not only "the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a subscriber" but also session times and durations, types of services used, communication device address information (e.g. IP addresses), payment method and bank account and credit card numbers.[47] Communication providers are also allowed to disclose customer records or communications if they suspect there is a danger to "life and limb".[48]

Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peek" searches, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act — the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard"[49] — and it may be extended at the court's discretion.[50] These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007 after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[51][52]

Roving wiretaps are wiretap orders that do not need to specify all common carriers and third parties in a surveillance court order. These are seen as important by the Department of Justice because they believe that terrorists can exploit wiretap orders by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones,[53] while opponents see it as violating the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment.[54][55] Another highly controversial provision is one that allows the FBI to make an order "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."[56] Though it was not targeted directly at libraries, the American Library Association (ALA), in particular, opposed this provision. In a resolution passed on June 29, 2005 they stated that "Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to secretly request and obtain library records for large numbers of individuals without any reason to believe they are involved in illegal activity."[57] However, the ALA's stance did not go without criticism. One prominent critic of the ALA's stance was the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald, who argued in an article for the New York City Journal that "[t]he furore over section 215 is a case study in Patriot Act fear-mongering."[58]

The title also covers a number of other miscellaneous provisions, including the expansion of the number of FISC judges from seven to eleven (three of which must reside within 20 miles (32 km) of the District of Columbia),[59] trade sanctions against North Korea and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan [60] and the employment of translators by the FBI.[61]

At the insistence of Republican Representative Richard Armey,[62] the Act had a number of sunset provisions built in, which were originally set to expire on December 31, 2005. The sunset provision of the Act also took into account any ongoing foreign intelligence investigations and allowed them to continue once the sections had expired.[63] The provisions that were to expire are below.
Title II sections that were to originally expire on December 31, 2005 Section Section title
201 Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism
202 Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses
203(b) Authority to share electronic, wire and oral interception information
204 Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications
206 Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
207 Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power
209 Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants
212 Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb
214 Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA
215 Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
217 Interception of computer trespasser communications
218 Foreign intelligence information
220 Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence
223 Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures
225 Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap

[edit] Title III: Anti-money-laundering to prevent terrorism

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title III

Title III of the Act, titled "International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001," is intended to facilitate the prevention, detection and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. It primarily amends portions of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (MLCA) and the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). It is divided into three subtitles, with the first dealing primarily with strengthening banking rules specifically against money laundering, especially on the international stage. The second attempts to improve communication between law enforcement agencies and financial institutions. This subtitle also increases record keeping and reporting requirements. The third subtitle deals with currency smuggling and counterfeiting, including quadrupling the maximum penalty for counterfeiting foreign currency, such as the Hans Vierck case of 2001.

The first subtitle tightened the record keeping requirements for financial institutions, making them record the aggregate amounts of transactions processed from areas of the world where money laundering is a concern to the U.S. government. It also made institutions put into place reasonable steps to identify beneficial owners of bank accounts and those who are authorized to use or route funds through payable-through accounts.[64] The U.S. Treasury was charged with formulating regulations designed to foster information sharing between financial institutions in order to prevent money-laundering.[65] Along with expanding record keeping requirements it put new regulations into place to make it easier for authorities to identify money laundering activities and to make it harder for money launderers to mask their identities.[66] If money laundering was uncovered, the subtitle legislated for the forfeiture of assets of those suspected of doing the money laundering.[67] In an effort to encourage institutions to do their bit to reduce money laundering, the Treasury was given authority to block mergers of bank holding companies and banks with other banks and bank holding companies that had a bad history of preventing money laundering. Similarly, mergers between insured depository institutions and non-insured depository institutions that have a bad track record in combating money-laundering could be blocked.[68]

Restrictions were placed on accounts and foreign banks. Foreign shell banks that are not an affiliate of a bank that has a physical presence in the U.S. or that are not subject to supervision by a banking authority in a non-U.S. country were prohibited. The subtitle has several sections that prohibit or restrict the use of certain accounts held at financial institutions.[69] Financial institutions must now undertake steps to identify the owners of any privately owned bank outside the U.S. who have a correspondent account with them, along with the interests of each of the owners in the bank. It is expected that additional scrutiny will be applied by the U.S. institution to such banks to make sure they are not engaging in money laundering. Banks must identify all the nominal and beneficial owners of any private bank account opened and maintained in the U.S. by non-U.S. citizens. There is also an expectation that they must undertake enhanced scrutiny of the account if it is owned by, or is being maintained on behalf of, any senior political figure where there is reasonable suspicion of corruption.[70] Any deposits made from within the U.S. into foreign banks are now deemed to have been deposited into any interbank account the foreign bank may have in the U.S. Thus any restraining order, seizure warrant or arrest warrant may be made against the funds in the interbank account held at a U.S. financial institution, up to the amount deposited in the account at the foreign bank.[71] Restrictions were placed on the use of internal bank concentration accounts because such accounts do not provide an effective audit trail for transactions, and this may be used to facilitate money laundering. Financial institutions are prohibited from allowing clients to specifically direct them to move funds into, out of, or through a concentration account, and they are also prohibited from informing their clients about the existence of such accounts. Financial institutions are not allowed to provide any information to clients that may identify such internal accounts.[72] Financial institutions are required to document and follow methods of identifying where the funds are for each customer in a concentration account that co-mingles funds belonging to one or more customers.

The definition of money laundering was expanded to include making a financial transaction in the U.S. in order to commit a crime of violence;[73] the bribery of public officials and fraudulent dealing with public funds; the smuggling or illegal export of controlled munitions[74] and the importation or bringing in of any firearm or ammunition not authorised by the U.S. Attorney General[75] and the smuggling of any item controlled under the Export Administration Regulations.[76][77] It also includes any offense where the U.S. would be obligated under a mutual treaty with a foreign nation to extradite a person, or where the U.S. would need to submit a case against a person for prosecution due to the treaty; the import of falsely classified goods;[78] computer crime;[79] and any felony violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.[77] It also allows the forfeiture of any property within the jurisdiction of the United States that was gained as the result of an offense against a foreign nation that involves the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance.[80] Foreign nations may now seek to have a forfeiture or judgement notification enforced by a district court of the United States.[81] This is done through new legislation that specifies how the U.S. government may apply for a restraining order[82] to preserve the availability of property which is subject to a foreign forfeiture or confiscation judgement.[83] In taking into consideration such an application, emphasis is placed on the ability of a foreign court to follow due process.[81] The Act also requires the Secretary of Treasury to take all reasonable steps to encourage foreign governments make it a requirement to include the name of the originator in wire transfer instructions sent to the United States and other countries, with the information to remain with the transfer from its origination until the point of disbursement.[84] The Secretary was also ordered to encourage international cooperation in investigations of money laundering, financial crimes, and the finances of terrorist groups.[85]

The Act also introduced criminal penalties for corrupt officialdom. An official or employee of the government who acts corruptly — as well as the person who induces the corrupt act — in the carrying out of their official duties will be fined by an amount that is not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the bribe in question. Alternatively they may be imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or they may be fined and imprisoned. Penalties apply to financial institutions who do not comply with an order to terminate any corresponding accounts within 10 days of being so ordered by the Attorney General or the Secretary of Treasury. The financial institution can be fined $US10,000 for each day the account remains open after the 10 day limit has expired.[71]

The second subtitle made a number of modifications to the BSA in an attempt to make it harder for money launderers to operate and easier for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to police money laundering operations. One amendment made to the BSA was to allow the designated officer or agency who receives suspicious activity reports to notify U.S. intelligence agencies.[86] A number of amendments were made to address issues related to record keeping and financial reporting. One measure was a new requirement that anyone who does business file a report for any coin and foreign currency receipts that are over US$10,000 and made it illegal to structure transactions in a manner that evades the BSA's reporting requirements.[87] To make it easier for authorities to regulate and investigate anti-money laundering operations Money Services Businesses (MSBs) — those who operate informal value transfer systems outside of the mainstream financial system — were included in the definition of a financial institution.[88] The BSA was amended to make it mandatory to report suspicious transactions and an attempt was made to make such reporting easier for financial institutions.[89] FinCEN was made a bureau of the United States Department of Treasury[90] and the creation of a secure network to be used by financial institutions to report suspicious transactions and to provide alerts of relevant suspicious activities was ordered.[91] Along with these reporting requirements, a considerable number of provisions relate to the prevention and prosecution of money-laundering.[92] Financial institutions were ordered to establish anti-money laundering programs and the BSA was amended to better define anti-money laundering strategy.[93] Also increased were civil and criminal penalties for money laundering and the introduction of penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders and certain record-keeping requirements.[94] A number of other amendments to the BSA were made through subtitle B, including granting the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System power to authorize personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect the premises, grounds, property and personnel of any U.S. Federal reserve bank and allowing the Board to delegate this authority to U.S. Federal reserve banks.[95] Another measure instructed United States Executive Directors of international financial institutions to use their voice and vote to support any country that has taken action to support the U.S.'s War on Terrorism. Executive Directors are now required to provide ongoing auditing of disbursements made from their institutions to ensure that no funds are paid to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.[96]

The third subtitle deals with currency crimes. Largely due to the effectiveness of the BSA, money launders had been avoiding traditional financial institutions to launder money and were using cash-based businesses to avoid them. A new effort was made to stop the laundering of money through bulk currency movements, mainly focusing on the confiscation of criminal proceeds and the increase in penalties for money laundering. Congress found that a criminal offense of merely evading the reporting of money transfers was insufficient and decided that it would be better if the smuggling of the bulk currency itself was the offense. Therefore, the BSA was amended to make it a criminal offense to evade currency reporting by concealing more than US$10,000 on any person or through any luggage, merchandise or other container that moves into or out of the U.S. The penalty for such an offense is up to 5 years imprisonment and the forfeiture of any property up to the amount that was being smuggled.[97] It also made the civil and criminal penalty violations of currency reporting cases[98] be the forfeiture of all a defendant's property that was involved in the offense, and any property traceable to the defendant.[99] The Act prohibits and penalizes those who run unlicensed money transmitting businesses.[100] In 2005, this provision of Patriot Act was used to prosecute Yehuda Abraham for helping to arrange money transfers for British arms dealer Hermant Lakhani, who was arrested in August 2003 after being caught in a government sting. Lakhani had tried to sell a missile to an FBI agent posing as a Somali militant.[101] The definition of counterfeiting was expanded to encompass analog, digital or electronic image reproductions, and it was made an offense to own such a reproduction device. Penalties were increased to 20 years imprisonment.[102] Money laundering "unlawful activities" was expanded to include the provision of material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.[103] The Act specifies that anyone who commits or conspires to undertake a fraudulent activity outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and which would be an offense in the U.S., will be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1029, which deals with fraud and related activity in connection with access devices.[104]

[edit] Title IV: Border security

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title IV

Title IV amends the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to give more law enforcement and investigative power to the United States Attorney General and to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The Attorney General was authorized to waive any cap on the number of full time employees (FTEs) assigned to the INS on the Northern border of the United States.[105] Enough funds were set aside to triple the maximum number of Border Patrol personnel, Customs Service personnel and INS inspectors along with an additional US$50,000,000 funding for the INS and the U.S. Customs Service to improve technology for monitoring the Northern Border and acquiring additional equipment at the Canadian northern border.[106] The INS was also given the authority to authorise overtime payments of up to an extra US$30,000 a year to INS employees.[107] Access was given to the Department of State and the INS to criminal background information contained in the National Crime Information Center's Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-III), Wanted Persons File and any other files maintained by the National Crime Information Center in order to determine whether visa applicants and applicants could be admitted to the U.S.[108] The Department of State was required to form final regulations governing the procedures for taking fingerprints and the conditions with which the department was allowed to use this informations.[109] Additionally, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was ordered to develop a technology standard to verify the identity of persons applying for a United States . The reason was to make the standard the technology basis for a cross-agency, cross-platform electronic system used for conducting background checks, confirming identities and ensuring that people have not received visas under different names.[110] This report was released on November 13, 2002,[111] however, according to NIST, this was later "determined that the fingerprint system used was not as accurate as current state-of-the-art fingerprint systems and is approximately equivalent to commercial fingerprint systems available in 1998."[112] This report was later superseded by section 303(a) of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.

Under subtitle B, various definitions relating to terrorism were altered and expanded. The INA was retroactively amended to disallow aliens who are part of or representatives of a foreign organization or any group who endorses acts of terrorism from entering the U.S. This restriction also included the family of such aliens.[113] The definition of "terrorist activity" was strengthened to include actions involving the use of any dangerous device (and not just explosives and firearms).[113] To "engage in terrorist activity" is defined as committing, inciting to commit or planning and preparing to undertake an act of terrorism. Included in this definition is the gathering of intelligence information on potential terrorist targets, the solicitation of funds for a terrorist organisation or the solicitation of others to undertake acts of terrorism. Those who provide knowing assistance to a person who is planning to perform such activities are defined as undertaking terrorist activities. Such assistance includes affording material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training to perform the terrorist act.[113] The INA criteria for making a decision to designate an organisation as a terrorist organisation was amended to include the definition of a terrorist act.[114] Though the amendments to these definitions are retroactive, it does not mean that it can be applied to members who joined an organisation, but since left, before it was designated to be a terrorist organisation under 8 U.S.C. § 1189 by the Secretary of State.[113]

The Act amended the INA to add new provisions enforcing mandatory detention laws. These apply to any alien who is engaged in terrorism, or who is engaged in an activity that endangers U.S. national security. It also applies to those who are inadmissible or who must be deported because it is certified they are attempting to enter in order to undertake illegal espionage, are exporting goods, technology or sensitive information illegally or are attempting to control or overthrow the government, or have, or will have, engaged in terrorist activities.[115] The Attorney General or the Attorney General's deputy may maintain custody of such aliens until they are removed from the U.S., unless it is no longer deemed they should be removed, in which case they are released. The alien can be detained for up to 90 days but can be held up to six months after it is deemed that they are a national security threat. However, removal proceedings or an arrest must be made no longer than seven days after the alien's detention, otherwise the alien will be released. However, such detentions must be reviewed every six months by the Attorney General, who can then decide to revoke it, unless prevented from doing so by law. Every six months the alien may apply, in writing, for the certification to be reconsidered.[115] Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section, including judicial review of the merits of a certification, can be held under habeas corpus proceedings. Such proceedings can be initiated by an application filed with the United States Supreme Court, by any justice of the Supreme Court, by any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, or by any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain the application. The final order is subject to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[115] Provisions were also made for a report to be required every six months of such decisions from the U.S. Attorney General to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.[115]

A sense of Congress was given that the U.S. Secretary of State should expedite the full implementation of the integrated entry and exit data system for airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry specified in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). They also found that the U.S. Attorney General should immediately start the Integrated Entry and Exit Data System Task Force specified in section 3 of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000. Congress wanted the primary focus of development of the entry-exit data system was to be on the utilization of biometric technology and the development of tamper-resistant documents readable at ports of entry. They also wanted the system to be able to interface with existing law enforcement databases.[116] The Attorney General was ordered to implement and expand the foreign student monitoring program that was established under section 641(a) of the IIRIRA.[117] which records the date and port of entry of each foreign student. The program was expanded to include other approved educational institutions, including air flight schools, language training schools or vocational schools that are approved by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of State. US$36,800,000 was appropriated for the Department of Justice to spend on implementing the program.[118]

The Secretary of State was ordered to audit and report back to Congress on the Visa waiver program specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1187 for each fiscal year until September 30, 2007. The Secretary was also ordered to check for the implementation of precautionary measures to prevent the counterfeiting and theft of passports as well as ascertain that countries designated under the visa waiver program have established a program to develop tamper-resistant passports.[119] The Secretary was also ordered to report back to Congress on whether consulate shopping was a problem.[120]

The last subtitle, which was introduced by Senators John Conyers and Patrick Leahy, allows for the preservation of immigration benefits for victims of terrorism, and the families of victims of terrorism.[121] They recognised that some families, through no fault of their own, would either be ineligible for permanent residence in the United States due to being unable to make important deadlines because of the September 11 terrorist attacks, or had become ineligible to apply for special immigration status because their loved one died in the attacks.[122]

[edit] Title V: Terrorism investigation

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title V

Title V was written in an attempt to remove obstacles to investigating terrorism. It allows the U.S. Attorney General to pay rewards pursuant of advertisements for assistance to the Department of Justice to combat terrorism and prevent terrorist acts, though amounts over $US250,000 may not be made or offered without the personal approval of the Attorney General or President, and once the award is approved the Attorney General must give written notice to the Chairman and ranking minority members of the Committee on Appropriations and the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.[123] The State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 was amended to allow the Department of State to offer rewards, in consultation with the Attorney General, for the full or significant dismantling of any terrorist organisation[124] and to identify any key leaders of terrorist organisations.[125] The Secretary of State was given authority to pay greater than $US5 million if he so determines it would prevent terrorist actions against the United States and Canada.[126] The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act was amended to include terrorism or crimes of violence in the list of qualifying Federal offenses.[127] Another perceived obstacle was to allow Federal agencies to share information with Federal law enforcement agencies. Thus, the act now allows Federal officers who acquire information through electronic surveillance or physical searches to consult with Federal law enforcement officers to coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against potential or actual attacks, sabotage or international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power.[128]

Secret Service jurisdiction was extended to investigate computer fraud, access device frauds, false identification documents or devices, or any fraudulent activities against U.S. financial institutions.[129] The General Education Provisions Act was amended to allow the U.S. Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General to collect and retain educational records relevant to an authorized investigation or prosecution of an offense that is defined as a Federal crime of terrorism and which an educational agency or institution possesses. The Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General must "certify that there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the education records are likely to contain information [that a Federal crime of terrorism may be being committed]." An education institution that produces education records in response to such a request is given legal immunity from any liability that rises from such a production of records.[130]

One of the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI were able to certify such requests.[131] This provision of the Act was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because there is no way to legally oppose an NSL subpoena in court, and that it was unconstitutional to not allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order due to the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional.[132] Later, the Patriot Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.[133] However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.

[edit] Title VI: Victims and families of victims of terrorism

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title VI

Title VI made amendments to the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA) in order to make changes to how the U.S. Victims of Crime Fund was managed and funded. Changes were made to VOCA to improve the speedy provision of aid to families of public safety officers by expedited payments to officers or the families of officers. Under the changes, payments must be made no less than 30 days after the officer is catastrophically injured or killed in the line of duty.[134] The Assistant Attorney General was given expanded authority under section 614 of the Patriot Act to make grants to any organisation that administers any Office of Justice Programs, which includes the Public Safety Officers Benefits Program.[135] Further changes to the Victims of Crime Fund increased the amount of money in the Fund, and changed the way that funds were distributed.[136] The amount available for grants made through the Crime Victim Fund to eligible crime victim compensation programs were increased from 40 percent to 60 percent of the total in the Fund. A program can provide compensation to U.S. citizens who were adversely affected overseas. Means testing was also waived for those who apply for compensation.[137] Under VOCA, the Director may make an annual grant from the Crime Victims Fund to support crime victim assistance programs. An amendment was made to VOCA to include offers of assistance to crime victims in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and any other U.S. territory.[138] VOCA also provides for compensation and assistance to victims of terrorism or mass violence.[139] This was amended to allow the Director to make supplemental grants to States for eligible crime victim compensation and assistance programs, and to victim service organizations, public agencies (including Federal, State, or local governments) and non-governmental organizations that provide assistance to victims of crime. The funds could be used to provide emergency relief, including crisis response efforts, assistance, compensation, training and technical assistance for investigations and prosecutions of terrorism.[140]

[edit] Title VII: Information sharing for infrastructure protection

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title VII

Title VII amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to enhance the ability of U.S. law enforcement to counter terrorist activity that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. It consists of only one section, section 701, titled "Expansion of Regional Information Sharing System to Facilitate Federal-State-Local Law Enforcement Response Related to Terrorist Attacks." It modifies the law that regulates grants provided for regional information sharing systems. Before it was amended by the Patriot Act the law allowed the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (a division of the Justice Department) to "make grants and enter into contracts" with State, local criminal authorities, and non-profit organizations to stop criminal activities that cross jurisdictional boundaries.[141] Title VII added "terrorist conspiracies and activities" to the list of activities to which the Director could provide grants.[142] It also adds to the list of items that grants and contacts may be made for "secure information sharing systems" to aid in "addressing multi-jurisdictional terrorist conspiracies and activities." The Bureau of Justice Assistance's was given a budget of US$50,000,000 for the 2002 fiscal year, and US$100,000,000, for the 2003 fiscal year in order to provide grants.[143]

[edit] Title VIII: Terrorism criminal law

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title VIII

Title VIII alters the definitions of terrorism, and establishes or re-defines rules with which to deal with it. It redefined the term "domestic terrorism" to broadly include mass destruction as well as assassination or kidnapping as a terrorist activity. The definition also encompasses activities that are "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" and are intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or are undertaken "to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" while in the jurisdiction of the United States.[144] Terrorism is also included in the definition of racketeering.[145] Terms relating to cyber-terrorism are also redefined, including the term "protected computer," "damage," "conviction," "person," and "loss."[146]

New penalties were created to convict those who attack mass transportation systems. If the offender committed such an attack while no passenger was on board, they are fined and imprisoned for a maximum of 20 years. However, if the activity was undertaken while the mass transportation vehicle or ferry was carrying a passenger at the time of the offense, or the offense resulted in the death of any person, then the punishment is a fine and life imprisonment.[147] The title amends the biological weapons statute to define the use of a biological agent, toxin, or delivery system as a weapon, other than when it is used for "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes." Penalties for anyone who cannot prove reasonably that they are using a biological agent, toxin or delivery system for these purposes are 10 years imprisonment, a fine or both.[148]

A number of measures were introduced in an attempt to prevent and penalize activities that are deemed to support terrorism. It was made a crime to harbor or conceal terrorists, and those who do are subject to a fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both.[149] U.S. forfeiture law was also amended to allow authorities to seize all foreign and domestic assets from any group or individual that is caught planning to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. or U.S. citizens. Assets may also be seized if they have been acquired or maintained by an individual or organisation for the purposes of further terrorist activities.[150] One section of the Act (section 805) prohibited "material support" for terrorists, and in particular included "expert advice or assistance."[151] This was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Federal Court after the Humanitarian Law Project filed a civil action against the U.S. government. The court found that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the provision was so vague it would cause a person of average intelligence to have to guess whether they were breaking the law, thus leading to a potential situation where a person was charged for an offense that they had no way of knowing was illegal. The court found that this could potentially have the effect of allowing arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law, as well as possible chilling effects on First Amendment rights.[152][153] Congress later improved the law by defining the definitions of the "material support or resources," "training," and "expert advise or resources."[154]

Cyberterrorism was dealt with in various ways. Penalties apply to those who either damage or gain unauthorized access to a protected computer and then commit a number of offenses. These offenses include causing a person to lose an aggregate amount greater than US$5,000, as well as adversely affecting someone's medical examination, diagnosis or treatment. It also encompasses actions that cause a person to be injured, a threat to public health or safety, or damage to a governmental computer that is used as a tool to administer justice, national defense or national security. Also prohibited was extortion undertaken via a protected computer. The penalty for attempting to damage protected computers through the use of viruses or other software mechanism was set to imprisonment for up to 10 years, while the penalty for unauthorized access and subsequent damage to a protected computer was increased to more than five years imprisonment. However, should the offense occur a second time, the penalty increases up to 20 years imprisonment.[155] The act also specified the development and support of cybersecurity forensic capabilities. It directs the Attorney General to establish regional computer forensic laboratories that have the capability of performing forensic examinations of intercepted computer evidence relating to criminal activity and cyberterrorism, and that have the capability of training and educating Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel and prosecutors in computer crime, and to "facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law enforcement expertise and information about the investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer-related crime with State and local law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task forces." The sum of $50,000,000 was authorized for establishing such labs.[156]

[edit] Title IX: Improved Intelligence

Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title IX

Title IX amends the National Security Act of 1947 to require the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) to establish requirements and priorities for foreign intelligence collected under FISA and to provide assistance to the United States Attorney General to ensure that information derived from electronic surveillance or physical searches is disseminated for efficient and effective foreign intelligence purposes.[157] With the exception of information that might jeopardize an ongoing law enforcement investigation, it was made a requirement that the Attorney General, or the head of any other department or agency of the Federal Government with law enforcement responsibilities, disclose to the Director any foreign intelligence acquired by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Attorney General and Director of Central Intelligence were directed to develop procedures for the Attorney General to follow in order to inform the Director, in a timely manner, of any intention of investigating criminal activity of a foreign intelligence source or potential foreign intelligence source based on the intelligence tip-off of a member of the intelligence community. The Attorney General was also directed to develop procedures on how to best administer these matters.[158] International terrorist activities were made to fall within the scope of foreign intelligence under the National Security Act.[159]

A number of reports were commissioned relating to various intelligence-related government centers. One was commissioned into the best way of setting up the National Virtual Translation Center, with the goal of developing automated translation facilities to assist with the timely and accurate translation of foreign intelligence information for elements of the U.S. intelligence community.[160] The Patriot Act required this to be provided on February 1, 2002, however the report, entitled "Director of Central Intelligence Report on the National Virtual Translation Center: A Concept Plan to Enhance the Intelligence Community's Foreign Language Capabilities, April 29, 2002" was received more than two months late, which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported was "a delay which, in addition to contravening the explicit words of the statute, deprived the Committee of timely and valuable input into its efforts to craft this legislation."[161] Another report was commissioned on the feasibility and desirability of reconfiguring the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center and the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury.[162] It was due by February 1, 2002 however, it was never written. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later complained that "[t]he Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of the Treasury failed to provide a report, this time in direct contravention of a section of the USA PATRIOT Act" and they further directed "that the statutorily-directed report be completed immediately, and that it should include a section describing the circumstances which led to the Director's failure to comply with lawful reporting requirements."[163]

Other measures allowed certain reports on intelligence and intelligence-related matters to be deferred until either February 1, 2002 or a date after February 1, 2002 if the official involved certified that preparation and submission on February 1, 2002, would impede the work of officers or employees engaged in counterterrorism activities. Any such deferral required congressional notification before it was authorized.[164] The Attorney General was charged with training officials in identifying and utilizing foreign intelligence information properly in the course of their duties. The government officials include those in the Federal Government who do not normally encounter or disseminate foreign intelligence in the performance of their duties, and State and local government officials who encounter, or potentially may encounter in the course of a terrorist event, foreign intelligence in the performance of their duties.[165] A sense of Congress was expressed that officers and employees of the intelligence community should be encouraged to make every effort to establish and maintain intelligence relationships with any person, entity, or group while they conduct lawful intelligence activities.[159]

[edit] Reauthorizations

The Patriot Act was reauthorized by two bills. The first, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005, was passed by both houses of Congress in July 2005. This bill reauthorized provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It created new provisions relating to the death penalty for terrorists,[166] enhancing security at seaports,[167] new measures to combat the financing of terrorism,[168] new powers for the Secret Service,[169] anti-Methamphetamine initiatives[170] and a number of other miscellaneous provisions. The second reauthorization act, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, amended the first and was passed in February 2006.

The first act reauthorized all but two of the provisions of Title II that would have expired. Two sections were changed to sunset on December 31, 2009: section 206 — the roving wiretap provision — and section 215, which allowed access to business records under FISA. Section 215 was amended further regardless so as to give greater judicial oversight and review. Such orders were also restricted to be authorized by only the FBI Director, the FBI Deputy Director, or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security, and minimization procedures were specified to limit the dissemination and collection of such information. Section 215 also had a "gag" provision, which was changed to allow the defendant to contact their Attorney.[171] However, the change also meant that the defendant was also made to tell the FBI who they were disclosing the order to — this requirement was removed by the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act.[172]

As NSL provisions of the Patriot Act had been struck by the courts,[132] the reauthorization Act amended the law in an attempt to make them lawful. It provided for judicial review and the legal right of a recipient to challenge the validity of the letter. The reauthorization act still allowed NSLs to be closed and all evidence to be presented in camera and ex parte.[173] Gag provisions were maintained, but were not automatic. They only occurred when the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office certified that disclosure would result in "a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person".[174] However, should there be no non-disclosure order, the defendant can disclose the fact of the NSL to anyone who can render them assistance in carrying out the letter, or to an attorney for legal advise. Again, however, the recipient was order to inform the FBI of such a disclosure.[174] Due to the concern over the chilling effects of such a requirement, the Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act removed the requirement to inform the FBI that the recipient spoke about the NSL to their Attorney.[175] Later, the Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act excluded libraries from receiving NSLs, except where they provide electronic communications services.[176] The reauthorization Act also ordered the Attorney General submit a report semi-annually to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on all NSL requests made under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[177]

Changes were made to the roving wiretap provisions of the Patriot Act. Applications and orders for such wiretaps must describe the specific target of the electronic surveillance if the identity of the target is not known. If the nature and location of each of the facilities or places targeted for surveillance is not known, then after 10 days the agency must provide notice to the court. The notice must include the nature and location of each new facility or place at which the electronic surveillance was directed. It must also describe the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant's belief that each new surveillance place or facility under surveillance is or was being used by the target of the surveillance. The applicant must also provide a statement detailing any proposed minimization procedures that differ from those contained in the original application or order, that may be necessitated by a change in the facility or place at which the electronic surveillance is directed. Applicants must detail the total number of electronic surveillances that have been or are being conducted under the authority of the order.[178]

Section 213 of the Patriot Act was modified. Previously it stated that delayed notifications would be made to recipients of "sneak and peek" searches in a "reasonable period". This was seen as unreasonable, as it was undefined and could potentially be used indefinitely. Thus, the reauthorization act changed this to a period not exceeding 30 days after the date of the execution of the search warrant. Courts were given the opportunity to extend this period if they were provided good cause to do so. Section 213 states that delayed notifications could be issued if there is "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result". This was criticised, particularly by the ACLU, for allowing potential abuse by law enforcement agencies[179] and was later amended to prevent a delayed notification "if the adverse results consist only of unduly delaying a trial."[180]

The reauthorization act also legislates increased congressional oversight for emergency disclosures by communication providers undertaken under section 212 of the Patriot Act.[181] The duration of FISA surveillance and physical search orders were increased. Surveillance performed against "lone wolf terrorists" under section 207 of the Patriot Act were increased to 120 days for an initial order, while pen registers and trap and trace device extensions under FISA were increased from 90 days to a year. The reauthorization act also increased congressional oversight, requiring a semi-annual report into physical searches and the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices under FISA.[182] The "lone wolf terrorist" provision (Section 207) was a sunset provision that also was to have expired, however this was enhanced by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The reauthorization act extended the expiration date to December 31, 2009.[183] The amendment to material support law done in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act[154] was also made permanent.[184] The definition of terrorism was further expanded to include receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization and narcoterrorism.[185] Other provisions of the reauthorization act was to merge the law outlawing train wrecking (18 U.S.C. § 992) and the law outlawing attacks on mass transportation systems (18 U.S.C. § 1993) into a new section of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. § 1992) and also to criminalize the act of planning a terrorist attack against a mass transport system.[186][187] Forfeiture law was further changed and now assets within U.S. jurisdiction will be seized for illegally trafficking in nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons technology or material, if such offense is punishable under foreign law by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Alternatively, this applies if similar punishment would be so punishable if committed within the U.S.[188] A sense of Congress was further expressed that victims of terrorism should be entitled to the forfeited assets of terrorists.[189]

[edit] Controversy

Main article: Controversial invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act

The Patriot Act has generated a great deal of controversy since its enactment. Opponents of the Act have been quite vocal in asserting that it was passed opportunistically after the September 11 terrorist attacks, believing there to have been little debate. They view the Act as one that was hurried through the Senate with little change before it was passed, even though Senators such as Patrick Leahy and Russell Feingold proposed amendments to modify the final revision.[190][191][9] The sheer magnitude of the Act itself was noted by Michael Moore in his film Fahrenheit 9/11. In one of the scenes of the movie, he records Congressman Jim McDermott alleging that no Senator read the bill[192] and John Conyers, Jr. as saying "We don't really read most of the bills. Do you know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?" Senator Conyers then answers his own rhetorical question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the legislative process".[193] As a dramatic device, Moore then hired an ice-cream van and drove around Washington, D.C. with a loud speaker, reading out the Act to puzzled passers-by, which included a few Senators.[194] However, Moore was not the only commentator to notice that not many people had read the Act. Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turne for Slate asked "How bad is Patriot, anyway?". They decided that it was "[h]ard to tell." and that "[t]he ACLU, in a new fact sheet challenging the DOJ Web site, wants you to believe that the act threatens our most basic civil liberties. Ashcroft and his roadies call the changes in law "modest and incremental." Since almost nobody has read the legislation, much of what we think we know about it comes third-hand and spun. Both advocates and opponents are guilty of fear-mongering and distortion in some instances."[195] A Gallup poll found that similar confusion existed in the minds of a portion of the American population. In August 2003 only 10 percent of people polled were "very familiar" with the Patriot Act, while 40 percent were "somewhat familiar", 25 percent were "not too familiar" and another 25 percent were "not at all familiar" with the Act. By January 2006 this had only risen to 17 percent who were "very familiar", 59 percent were "somewhat familiar", 18 percent who were "not too familiar" and 6 percent were "not at all familiar".[196] Perhaps unsurprisingly then, scriptwriters for such television shows as NCIS, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit and Las Vegas have been keen to use the Patriot Act as a plot device, often for purposes it was not intended.[197][198]

Much of the controversy over the Act stems from changes to foreign intelligence surveillance law, National Security Letters, material support prohibitions and mandatory detention laws. Roving wiretaps, defined in section 206,[199] were particularly controversial. Many commentators have objected to them, believing them to bypass the Fourth Amendment requirement that search warrants detail the place to be searched. EPIC have criticised the law as unconstitutional, especially when "the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally",[200] while the EFF hold that the lower standard applied to wiretaps "gives the FBI a 'blank check' to violate the communications privacy of countless innocent Americans".[201] Others do not find the roving wiretap legislation to be as concerning. Professor David D. Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center, a critic of many of the provisions of the Act, found that though they come at a cost to privacy are a sensible measure[202] while Paul Rosenzweig, a Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, argues that roving wiretaps are just a response to rapidly changing communication technology that is not necessarily fixed to a specific location or device.[203]

The Act also allows access to voicemail through a search warrant rather than through a title III wiretap order.[204] James Dempsey, of the CDT, believes that it unnecessarily overlooks the importance of notice under the Fourth Amendment and under a Title III wiretap,[205] and the EFF criticises the provision's lack of notice. However, the EFF's criticism is more extensive — they believe that the amendment "is in possible violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" because previously if the FBI listened to voicemail illegally, it couldn't use the messages in evidence against the defendant.[206] Others disagree with these assessments. Professor Orin Kerr, of the George Washington University school of law, believes that the ECPA "adopted a rather strange rule to regulate voicemail stored with service providers" because "under ECPA, if the government knew that there was one copy of an unopened private message in a person's bedroom and another copy on their remotely stored voicemail, it was illegal for the FBI to simply obtain the voicemail; the law actually compelled the police to invade the home and rifle through peoples' bedrooms so as not to disturb the more private voicemail." In Professor Kerr's opinion, this made little sense and the amendment that was made by the Patriot Act was reasonable and sensible.[207]

The Patriot Act's expansion of court jurisdiction to allow the nationwide service of search warrants proved controversial for the EFF.[208] They believe that agencies will be able to "'shop' for judges that have demonstrated a strong bias toward law enforcement with regard to search warrants, using only those judges least likely to say no—even if the warrant doesn't satisfy the strict requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution",[209] and that it reduces the likelihood that smaller ISPs or phone companies will try to protect the privacy of their clients by challenging the warrant in court — their reasoning is that "a small San Francisco ISP served with such a warrant is unlikely to have the resources to appear before the New York court that issued it."[209] They believe that this is bad because only the communications provider will be able to challenge the warrant as only they will know about it—many warrants are issued ex parte, which means that the target of the order is not present when the order is issued.[209]

For a time, the Patriot Act allowed for agents to undertake "sneak and peek" searches.[50] Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU strongly criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment,[210] with the ACLU going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and calling for it to be repealed.[211][212] However supporters of the amendment, such as Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to the New York City Journal, expressed the belief that it was necessary because the temporary delay in notification of a search order stops terrorists from tipping off counterparts who are being investigated.[213] In 2004, FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. While the U.S. Government did publicly apologise to Mr. Mayfield and his family,[214] Mr. Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mr. Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.[51][52]

Laws governing the material support of terrorism proved contentious. It was criticised by the EFF for infringement of freedom of association. The EFF argues that had this law been enacted during Apartheid, U.S. citizens would not have been able to support the African National Congress (ANC) as the EFF believe the ANC would have been classed as a terrorist organisation. They also used the example of a humanitarian social worker being unable to train Hamas members how to care for civilian children orphaned in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, a lawyer being unable to teach IRA members about international law, and peace workers being unable to offer training in effective peace negotiations or how to petition the United Nations regarding human rights abuses.[215] Another group, the Humanitarian Law Project, also objected to the provision prohibiting "expert advise and assistance" to terrorists and filed a suit against the U.S. government to have it declared unconstitutional. They succeeded, and a Federal Court found that the law was vague enough to cause a reasonable person to guess whether they were breaking the law or not. Thus they found it violated the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, and struck it down.[152][153]

Perhaps one of the biggest controversies involved the use of NSL's by the FBI. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order they were criticized by many parties.[216][217][218][219] In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions". [220] Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the Patriot Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.[132] Congress later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because they did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court again found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review.[221][222][223]

Another provision of the Patriot Act brought a great deal of consternation amongst librarians. Section 215 allows the FBI to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Amongst the "tangible things" that could be targeted, it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".[56] Supporters of the provision point out that these records are held by third-parties, and therefore are exempt from a citizen's reasonable expectations of privacy and also maintain that the FBI has not abused the provision.[224] As proof, then Attorney General John Ashcroft released information in 2003 that showed that section 215 orders had never been used.[225] However, despite protestations to the contrary, the American Library Association strongly objected to the provision, believing that library records are fundamentally different to ordinary business records, and that the provision would have a chilling effect on free speech. The association became so concerned that they formed a resolution condemning the Patriot Act, and which urged members to defend free speech and protect patrons' privacy.[226] They urged librarians to seek legal advice before complying with a search order and advised their members to only keeping records for as long as was legally needed.[227] Consequently, reports started filtering in that librarians were shredding records to avoid having to comply with such orders.[228][229][230] This stance was criticised by Heather Mac Donald, who opined that "[t]he furore over section 215 is a case study in Patriot Act fear-mongering."[231]

Another controversial aspect of the Patriot Act is the immigration provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of any alien whom the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act.[115] Before the Patriot Act was passed, Anita Ramasastry, an associate professor of law and a director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce, & Technology at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, Washington, accused the Act of depriving basic rights for immigrants to America, including legal permanent residents. She warned that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence — which the Patriot Act allows — sounds more like Taliban justice than ours. Our claim that we are attempting to build an international coalition against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass legislation allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated without basic U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice."[232] Many other parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion".[233] The University of California passed a resolution condemning (amongst other things) the indefinite detention provisions of the Act,[234] while the ACLU has accused the Act of giving the Attorney General "unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants... Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial."[235]

Another controversial aspect of the Patriot Act is its affect on the privacy of British Columbian citizens. British Columbia’s privacy commissioner raises concerns that the USA Patriot Act will allow the United States government to access Canadians' private information, such as personal medical records, that are outsourced to American companies. Although the government of British Columbia has taken measures to prevent United States authorities from obtaining information, the wide-spread powers of the USA Patriot Act could overcome legislation that is passed in Canada.[236] B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis stated in a report on the consequences of the USA Patriot Act, “once information is sent across borders, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to control”.[237]

In an effort to maintain their privacy, British Columbia placed amendments on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA), which was enacted as law on October 21, 2004. These amendments aim to place more firm limitations on “storing, accessing, and disclosing of B.C. public sector data by service providers.”[238] These laws only pertain to public sector data and do not cover trans-border or private sector data in Canada. The public sector establishments include an estimated 2,000 “government ministries, hospitals, boards of health, universities and colleges, school boards, municipal governments and certain Crown corporations and agencies.”[238]

Legal action has been taken in Nova Scotia to protect the province from the Patriot Act’s data collecting methods. On November 15th, 2007 the government of Nova Scotia passed a legislation aimed to protect Nova Scotians’ personal information from being brought forward by the US Patriot Act. The act was entitled “The new Personal Information International Disclosure Protection Act”. The goal of the act is to establish requirements to protect personal information from being revealed, as well as punishments for failing to do so. Justice Minister Murray Scott stated, "This legislation will help ensure that Nova Scotians' personal information will be protected. The act outlines the responsibilities of public bodies, municipalities and service providers and the consequences if these responsibilities are not fulfilled."[239]

[edit] References

1. ^ "Safe Act Co-Sponsors say PATRIOT Act Conference Report Unacceptable."
2. ^ H.R. 2975, The House [of Representatives] Open Multimedia Access System (THOMAS).
3. ^ S. 1510, The House [of Representatives] Open Multimedia Access System (THOMAS).
4. ^ U.S. Government Printing Office. S11020 (October 25th, 2001) Congressional Record.
5. ^ U.S. Government Printing Office. S11021 (October 25th, 2001) Congressional Record.
6. ^ U.S. Government Printing Office. S11022 (October 25th, 2001) Congressional Record.
7. ^ U.S. Government Printing Office. S11022 (October 25th, 2001) Congressional Record.
8. ^ H.R. 3162, The House [of Representatives] Open Multimedia Access System (THOMAS).
9. ^ a b U.S. Government Printing Office. S10991 (October 25, 2001) Congressional Record.
10. ^ "'Trust me' just doesn't fly", News, USA Today. Retrieved on 2007-10-07. "The conspiracy indictment disclosed Tuesday of three men already awaiting trial in England is a reminder that terrorism is a real threat, and most of the law is non-controversial."
11. ^ Steranko, Anastasia. "PATRIOT Act inspires discussion of civil liberties", The Pitt News, 2003-09-19. Retrieved on 2007-10-07.
12. ^ Haigh, Anna. "Debate around Patriot Act increases", News, The Daily Pennsylvanian, 2004-02-13. Retrieved on 2007-10-07.
13. ^ The House [of Representatives] Open Multimedia Access System (THOMAS)., S.1552.
14. ^ H.R. 3171, The House [of Representatives] Open Multimedia Access System (THOMAS).
15. ^ S.1709, The House [of Representatives] Open Multimedia Access System (THOMAS).
16. ^ PBS (February 7th, 2007), Now with Bill Moyers, transcript.
17. ^ EFF Analysis of "Patriot II," Provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 30th August, 2007.
18. ^ Control Sheet of the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003", retrieved August 30th, 2007.
19. ^ Singel, Ryan. "A Chilly Response to 'Patriot II'", Politics : Law, Wired News, 2003-03-12. Retrieved on 2007-10-17.
20. ^ United States Department of Justice (February 7th, 2007), Statement of Barbara Comstock, Director of Public Affairs
21. ^ U.S. Government Printing Office. S9368 (September 11, 2001) Congressional Record.
22. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1002.
23. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1012.
24. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1001.
25. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1003.
26. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1004.
27. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1006.
28. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1005.
29. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1007.
30. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1008.
31. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1009.
32. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1010.
33. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (a).
34. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (b).
35. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (c).
36. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 218.
37. ^ Andrew C. McCarthy, "Why Section 218 Should be Retained", accessed January 23, 2006. The Patriot Debates.
38. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 214.
39. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 207.
40. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 203.
41. ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 216.
42. ^ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Pen Registers, the Internet and Carnivore, Electronic Privacy Information Center. Accessed December 4, 2005.
43. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 219.
44. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 204 & 209.
45. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 217.
46. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 211.
47. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 210.
48. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 212.
49. ^ Field Guidance on New Authorities (Redacted), Federal Bureau of Investigation (hosted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center). Accessed 2007-09-24.
50. ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 213.
51. ^ a b Singel, Ryan. "Court Strikes Down 2 Key Patriot Act Provisions", Surveillance, The Courts, 2007-09-26.
52. ^ a b Keller, Susan Jo. "Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to Be Illegal", The New York Times, September 27, 2007.
53. ^ United States Department of Justice, The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty, pg. 2. Accessed 2007-09024.
54. ^ James Dempsey, "Why Section 206 Should be Modified" (undated), accessed January 7, 2006.
55. ^ EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 206: 'Roving Surveillance Authority Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978'", accessed December 28, 2005
56. ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 215.
57. ^ American Library Association, Resolution on the USA PATRIOT Act and Libraries, enacted June 29, 2005
58. ^ Mac Donald, Heather. "Straight Talk on Homeland Security", City Journal, Summer 2003.
59. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 208.
60. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 221.
61. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 205.
62. ^ O'Harrow, Jr., Robert. "Six Weeks in Autumn", The Washington Post, 2002-10-27, pp. W06. Retrieved on 2007-10-17.
63. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 224.
64. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 311.
65. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 314.
66. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 317.
67. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 312, 313, 319 & 325.
68. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 327.
69. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 313.
70. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 312.
71. ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 319.
72. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 325.
73. ^ Amendment made to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(ii) — for some reason an extra parenthesis was inserted into 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iii), according to Cornell University, this was probably mistakenly added by law makers
74. ^ Illegal export of controlled munitions is defined in the United States Munitions List, which is part of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2778)
75. ^ See 18 U.S.C. § 922(l) and 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)
76. ^ Defined in 15 CFR 730-774
77. ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 315.
78. ^ Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 541
79. ^ Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030
80. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 320. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 981(A)(1)(B).
81. ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 323. Amended 28 U.S.C. § 2467
82. ^ Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(j)
83. ^ 28 U.S.C. § 2467(d)(3)(A)
84. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 328.
85. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 330.
86. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 356.
87. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 365.
88. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 359.
89. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 352, 354 & 365.
90. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 361.
91. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 362.
92. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 352.
93. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 354.
94. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 353.
95. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 364.
96. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 360.
97. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 371.
98. ^ So defined in 31 U.S.C. § 5313, 31 U.S.C. § 5316 and 31 U.S.C. § 5324
99. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 372. Amended 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)
100. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 371. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1960.
101. ^ "The Patriot Act: Justice Department Claims Success", National Public Radio, 2005-07-20.
102. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 374. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1960.
103. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 376. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(D)
104. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 377.
105. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 401.
106. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 402.
107. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 404. Amended the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2001.
108. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 403. Amends 8 U.S.C. § 1105.
109. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Sec. 403. Final regulations are specified in 22 C.F.R. 40.5.
110. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 405.
111. ^ National Institute of Standards and Technology, November 13, 2002. "Use of Technology Standards and Interoperable Databases With Machine-Readable, Tamper-Resistant Travel Documents" (Appendix A)
112. ^ NIST Image Group's Fingerprint Research, see the section "NIST Patriot Act Work" (accessed June 28, 2006)
113. ^ a b c d USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 411.
114. ^ As specified in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989; see 22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)
115. ^ a b c d e USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 412. A new section was created by the Act — 8 U.S.C. § 1226a
116. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 414.
117. ^ 8 U.S.C. § 1372(a)
118. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 416.
119. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 417.
120. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 418.
121. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle C.
122. ^ Office of Patrick Leahy, USA PATRIOT Act Section-by-section analysis
123. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 501.
124. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended 22 U.S.C. § 2708(b)(5)
125. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended 22 U.S.C. § 2708(b)(6)
126. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended 22 U.S.C. § 2708(e)(1)
127. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 503. Amended 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(2)
128. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 503. Amended 50 U.S.C. § 1825.
129. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 506.
130. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 507.
131. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 505. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 2709(b); Section 1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. § 3414(a)(5)(A)) and Section 624 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681u).
132. ^ a b c Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) source
133. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177) Title I, Sec. 115 & 116
134. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec. 611.
135. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec. 614.
136. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 621
137. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 622.
138. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 623. Amended 42 U.S.C. § 10603(b)(1).
139. ^ 42 U.S.C. § 10603b
140. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 624.
141. ^ 42 U.S.C. § 3796h
142. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VII, Sec. 701, (1).
143. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VII, Sec. 701, (1)(d)
144. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 802.
145. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 813. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).
146. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e).
147. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 801.
148. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 817.
149. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 803. Created 18 U.S.C. § 2339.
150. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 806. Amends 18 U.S.C. § 981.
151. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Section 805(a)(2)(B).
152. ^ a b Humanitarian Law Project et al. v. John Ashcroft, Findlaw
153. ^ a b Humanitarian Law Project (2004-01-26). "Key Patriot Act provision ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment". Press release. Retrieved on 2007-07-24. “January 26, 2004: The Center for Constitutional Rights announced today that a federal court in Los Angeles has declared unconstitutional a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, enacted six weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This is the first judicial ruling in the country declaring part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. In a decision issued late Friday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that a ban on providing "expert advice and assistance" to terrorist groups violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution because it is so vague that it "could be construed to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment."”
154. ^ a b Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (U.S. S. 2845, Public Law 108-458), Title VI, Subtitle F, Sec. 6603.
155. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814.
156. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 816.
157. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 901.
158. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 905.
159. ^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 903.
160. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 906.
161. ^ Senate Report 107-149 - "To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 for Intelligence and Intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Disability System, and for other purposes.", see the section "National Virtual Translation Center"
162. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 907.
163. ^ Senate Report 107-149 - "To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 for Intelligence and Intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Disability System, and for other purposes.", see the section "Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center"
164. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 904.
165. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 908.
166. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title II ("Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement")
167. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title III ("Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports")
168. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title IV ("Combating Terrorism Financing")
169. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177) Title VI ("Secret Service")
170. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title VII ("Combating Methamphetamine Epedemic Act of 2005")
171. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 106
172. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 3.
173. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 115
174. ^ a b USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 116
175. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 4.
176. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 5.
177. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 118
178. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 108
179. ^ American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU Letter to Congress Urging A "No" Vote On the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act Conference Report (Dec. 12, 2005), accessed on October 6th, 2007.
180. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 114
181. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 107
182. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 109
183. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 105
184. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 104
185. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 112
186. ^ Yeah, Brian T. & Doyle, Charles (2006-12-21), USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service, p. 24, . Retrieved on 7 October 2007
187. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 110
188. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 111.
189. ^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 127.
190. ^ History of the Patriot Act. Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved on 2007-10-07. “Though the Act made significant amendments to over 15 important statutes, it was introduced with great haste and passed with little debate, and without a House, Senate, or conference report. As a result, it lacks background legislative history that often retrospectively provides necessary statutory interpretation.”
191. ^ EFF Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act That Relate To Online Activities. Electronic Frontiers Foundation (October 31, 2001). Retrieved on 2007-10-12. “...it seems clear that the vast majority of the sections included were not carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate it or to hear testimony from experts outside of law enforcement in the fields where it makes major changes.”
192. ^ Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary). Timestamp: 01:01:39–01:01:47.
193. ^ Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary). Timestamp: 01:02:02–01:02:15.
194. ^ Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary). Timestamp: 01:02:35–01:02:43.
195. ^ Lithwick, Dahlia. "A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 1", Jurisprudence, 2003-09-08.
196. ^ "USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results", USA Today, 2006-10-01.
197. ^ Locy, Toni. "Patriot Act blurred in the public mind", USA Today, 2007-02-27.
198. ^ Murray, John C.. "NCIS: the parody that chills", Entertainment/TV & Radio, The Age, 2004-07-01.
199. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 206.
200. ^ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Expanded Dissemination of Information Obtained in Criminal Investigations. Analysis. Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved on 2007-10-08.
201. ^ Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 206: "Roving Surveillance Authority Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978". USA PATRIOT/Sunset. Electronic Frontiers Foundation..
202. ^ Cole, David, The Patriot Act Violates Our Civil Liberties, Microsoft Encarta,
203. ^ Rosenzweig, Paul, Terrorism is not just a crime, American Bar Association,
204. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 209.
205. ^ James X. Dempsey, "Why Sections 209, 212, and 220 Should be Modified" (undated), accessed October 15, 2007.
206. ^ EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 209: 'Seizure of VoiceMail Messages Pursuant to Warrants'", accessed December 29, 2005
207. ^ Orin Kerr, "Why Sections 209, 212, and 220 Should be Modified" (undated), accessed October 12, 2007.
208. ^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 220.
209. ^ a b c EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 220: 'Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electronic Evidence'", accessed October 12, 2007.
210. ^ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Authority to Conduct Secret Searches ("Sneak and Peek"), Electronic Privacy Information Center. Accessed December 5, 2005.
211. ^ American Civil Liberties Union (September 10, 2003). "Uncle Sam Asks: "What The Hell Is Going On Here?"in New ACLU Print and Radio Advertisements". Press release.
212. ^ ACLU Ad On "Sneak-and-Peek" Searches: Overblown, FactCheck.org, September 21, 2004,
213. ^ Heather Mac Donald (undated), "Sneak-and-Peek in the Full Light of Day". American Bar Association, accessed October 12, 2007.
214. ^ "Apology Note from the United States Government", The Washington Post, 2006-11-29.
215. ^ EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 201: 'Authority to Intercept Wire, Oral, and Electronic Communications Relating to Terrorism,' and Section 805, 'Material Support for Terrorism'", accessed 2007-10-12.
216. ^ Allthough FBI officials have a series of internal "checks and balances" that must be met before the issue of an NSL, many government officials still cried foul. most controversial parts of the legislation were the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions/nationalsecurityletters/index.html National Security Letters main page of the ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
217. ^ Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT Section 505 - National Security Letters (NSLs). Electronic Frontiers Foundation. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
218. ^ EPIC: National Security Letters (NSLs). Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
219. ^ FBI Unbound: How National Security Letters Violate Our Privacy. Bill of Rights Defense Committee. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
220. ^ Dunham, Richard S.. "The Patriot Act: Business Balks", BusinessWeek, 2005-11-10. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
221. ^ American Civil Liberties Union (2007-09-06). "Federal Court Strikes Down National Security Letter Provision of Patriot Act". Press release. “NEW YORK - A federal court today struck down the amended Patriot Act's National Security Letter (NSL) provision. The law has permitted the FBI to issue NSLs demanding private information about people within the United States without court approval, and to gag those who receive NSLs from discussing them. The court found that the gag power was unconstitutional and that because the statute prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review of gags, it violated the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.”
222. ^ Eggen, Dan. "Judge Invalidates Patriot Act Provisions", The Washington Post, 2007-09-07, p. A01.
223. ^ Neumeister, Larry. "Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act", The Guardian, 2007-09-07.
224. ^ C. McCarthy, Andrew. Why Sections 214 and 215 Should be Retained. American Bar Association. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
225. ^ "No Patriot Check Out At Libraries", CBS News, 2003-09-18.
226. ^ Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users. American Library Association (2003-01-29). Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
227. ^ Kasindorf, Martin. "FBI's reading list worries librarians", USA Today, 2003-12-16. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
228. ^ Murphy. "Some Librarians Use Shredder to Show Opposition to New F.B.I. Powers", New York Times, April 7, 2003. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
229. ^ "Libraries Rally Against USA Patriot Act", Politics, Fox News, 2003-05-07. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
230. ^ Graham, Judith. "Libraries warning patrons: Federal government may be spying on you.", Chicago Tribune, 2003-04-03.
231. ^ Mac Donald, Heath. "Straight Talk on Homeland Security", City Journal, Summer 2003.
232. ^ Ramasastry, Anita (October 5, 2001), Indefinite detention based on suspicion: How The Patriot Act Will Disrupt Many Lawful Immigrants’ Lives, FindLaw, . Retrieved on 15 October 2007
233. ^ Feingold, Russell (2001-10-25). Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill From The Senate Floor. Retrieved on 2007-10-15.
234. ^ Resolution Passed at the May 6, 2004 Special Meeting of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate (PDF). University of California. Retrieved on 2007-10-15.
235. ^ Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act > Non surveillance provisions. American Civil Liberties Union (April 3, 2003). Retrieved on 2007-10-15.
236. ^ Patriot Act will prevail over B.C. privacy legislation (October 29, 2004). Retrieved on 2008-03-06.
237. ^ USA Patriot Act comes under fire in B.C. report (October 30,2004). Retrieved on 2008-03-06.
238. ^ a b British Columbia Responds to USA Patriot Act with Tough New Rules on How Service Providers Manage Public Sector Data (November 11,2004). Retrieved on 2008-03-06.
239. ^ Protection of Privacy Legislation Proclaimed (November 15, 2006). Retrieved on 2008-03-06.

[edit] External links
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
USA PATRIOT Act

Government sources

* "The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty" by the Department of Justice

2005 renewal

* H.R. 3199, Bill Summary and Status
* Section-by-section summary by Senator Patrick Leahy

Supportive views

* The Patriot Act and Related Provisions: The Heritage Foundation's Research
* Patriot Hysteria — The Zacarias Moussaoui Protection Act, article by Rich Lowry, National Review
* The Patriot Act under Fire by law professors John Yoo and Eric Posner, [[December 23 2003
* The Patriot Act, Reauthorized, JURIST
* The FBI's "GUARDIAN" database (in replacement of TALON)
* The international "ECHELON" network (UKUSA civilian-information sharing program)
* "CZTS," or Combat Zones That See: a nation-wide DARPA video surveillance/ computerized recognition demographic program
* The IAO, an evolution of DARPA's "Total Information Awareness" program, spawned in 2002, "defunded" in '03, and continuing to this day

Critical views

* PATRIOT Games: Terrorism Law and Executive Power, JURIST
* The Loyal Nine, youth based civil liberties organization against the USA PATRIOT Act
* American Library Association's Resolution on the PATRIOT Act
* "War on Terror" Human Rights Issues Amnesty International USA
* Jennifer Van Bergen, Repeal the USA PATRIOT Act A six-part series analyzing the Act.
* Beware of the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act" by activist group ReclaimDemocracy.org
* Bill of Rights Defense Committee: community-level initiatives opposing the Act
* Electronic Frontier Foundation's detailed analysis of the Act, October 27, 2003
* Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill, October 25, 2001
* Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil liberties?, by Richard Stallman, September 17, 2001
* Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act: PEN American Center
* League of Women Voters' Resources on the USA PATRIOT Act and Individual Liberties

Other

* Pros vs. Cons Examination of the USA PATRIOT Act
* Patriot Act news and resources, JURIST
* Video Debate: Howard Dean and Governor Bill Owens (R-CO), debate the USA PATRIOT Act, August 9, 2004 (Real Player required)
* More on Wikipedia and its PATRIOT Act overview; Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr
* Read Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding the USA PATRIOT Act
* PATRIOT Act at Wikia
* Is the Patriot Act Unconstitutional? - Encarta

Law review articles

* Chesney, Robert M. "The Sleeper Scenario: Terrorism Support Laws and the Demands of Prevention". Harvard Journal on Legislation (2005).
* Gouvin, Eric J. "Bringing Out the Big Guns: The USA PATRIOT Act, Money Laundering and the War on Terrorism". Baylor Law Review 55 (2003): 955.
* Kerr, Orin. "Digital Evidence and the New Criminal Procedure". Columbia Law Review (2005).
* Slovove, Daniel J. "Fourth Amendment Codification and Professor Kerr's Misguided Call for Judicial Deference". Fordham Law Review 74 (2005).
* Van Bergen, Jennifer. "In the Absence of Democracy: The Designation and Material Support Provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Laws". Cardozo Pub. [?] Law Policy & Ethics Journal 2 (2003): 107.
* Wong, Kam C. "Implementing the USA PATRIOT Act: A Case Study of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS)". Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal 2 (2006).
* –––. "The making of the USA PATRIOT Act I: Legislative Process and Dynamics". International Journal of the Sociology of Law 34.3 (2006): 179–219.
* –––. "The making of the USA PATRIOT ACT II: Public Sentiments, Legislative Climate, Political Gamesmanship, Media Patriotism". International Journal of the Sociology of Law 34.2 (2006): 105-140.
* –––. "USA PATRIOT Act and a Policy of Alienation". Michigan Journal of Minority Rights 1 (2006): 1–44.
* –––. "USA PATRIOT Act: Some Unanswered Questions". International Journal of the Sociology of Law 43.1 (2006): 1-41.

Books

* Cole, Dave, and James X. Dempsey. Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2002. ISBN 1-56584-782-2. (Full discussion of prior legislative history of the Act, going back more than ten years.)
* Harvey, Robert and Hélène Volat. De l'exception à la règle. USA PATRIOT Act[1]. Paris: Lignes, 2006. 215 p.
* Mailman, Stanley, Jeralyn E. Merritt, Theresa M. B. Van Vliet, and Stephen Yale-Loehr. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001: An Analysis. Newark, NJ and San Francisco, CA: Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. (a member of the LexisNexis Group), 2002. (Rel.1-3/02 Pub. 1271) ("An expert analysis of the significant changes in the new USA Patriot Act of 2001 [which]...track[s] the legislation by section, explaining both the changes and their potential impact with respect to: enhanced surveillance procedures;money laundering and financial crimes; protecting the border; investigation of terrorism; information sharing among federal and state authorities; enhanced criminal laws and penalties for terrorism offenses, and more.")
* Michaels, C. William. No Greater Threat: America Since September 11 and the Rise of the National Security State. Algora Publishing, Completely Updated for 2005. ISBN 0-87586-155-5. (Covers all ten titles of the USA PATRIOT Act; Includes review and analysis of: Homeland Security Act, "PATRIOT Act II," Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, Supreme Court decisions, "National Strategy" documents, 9-11 Commission recommendations, and various ongoing developments nationally and internationally in the "war on terrorism.")
* Van Bergen, Jennifer. The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America. Common Courage Press, 2004. ISBN 1-56751-292-5. (A constitutional analysis for the general public of the USA PATRIOT Act and other administrative measures, with the first half of the book spent on principles of democracy and constitutional law.)
* Brasch, Walter. America's Unpatriotic Acts: The Federal Government's Violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights. Peter Lang Publishing , 2005. ISBN 0820476080 (A long list of civil rights abuse claims by the Bush Administration inside the United States and other countries.)
* Kam C. Wong, "The Impact of USA Patriot Act on American Society: An Evidence Based Assessment" (N.Y.: Nova Press, 2007) (In print)
* Kam C. Wong, "The Making of USA Patriot Act: Legislation, Implementation, Impact" (Beijing: China Law Press, 2007) (In print)

[show]
v • d • e
War on Terrorism
Military conflicts Major terrorist attacks Participants in operations Targets of operations

* Operation Enduring Freedom (October 2001 – current)
o War in Afghanistan (Oct 2001 – current)
o OEF - Philippines (January 2002 – current)
o Georgia Train and Equip Program / Sustainment and Stability Operations
(February 2002 – September 2007)
o OEF - Horn of Africa (October 2002 – current)
o OEF - Trans Sahara (February 2007 – current)
* Islamic insurgency in the Maghreb (2002 – current)
* Iraq insurgency and operations (2003 – current)
* Insurgency in Saudi Arabia
(May 12, 2003 – current)
* War in Waziristan
(March 2004 – current)
* South Thailand insurgency
(November 7, 2004 – current)
* Lebanon War
(July 12, 2006 – August 14)
* War in Somalia
(December 20, 2006 – current)
* Lebanon-Fatah al-Islam conflict
(May 20 – September 3, 2007)

2001:

* September 11, 2001 attacks
* Shoe bomb plot (December 22)

2002:

* Terrorism in Pakistan
(February 2002 – current)
* 1st Bali bombing (October 12)

2003:

* Riyadh compound bombings
(May 12)
* Casablanca bombings (May 16)
* Marriott Hotel bombing (August 5)
* Istanbul bombings
(November 15 and November 20)

2004:

* SuperFerry 14 bombing (February 27)
* Madrid train bombings (March 11)
* Jakarta Australian embassy bombing (September 9)

2005:

* 1st London bombings (July 7)
* 2nd London bombings (July 21)
* Sharm el-Sheikh attacks (July 23)
* 2nd Bali bombings (October 1)
* Delhi bombings (October 29)
* Amman bombings (November 9)

2006:

* Mumbai train bombings (July 11)
* 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot (August)

2007:

* 1st Algiers bombings (April 11)
* 2007 Fort Dix attack plot (May 7)
* London car bomb plot and Glasgow Airport attack
(June 29 and June 30 respectively)
* Qahtaniya bombings (August 14)
* Karachi bombing (October 18)
* Baghlan bombing (November 6)
* Philippine Congress bombing (November 13)
* 2nd Algiers bombings (December 11)

* Afghanistan War:
o Invasion Allies
o Flag of Afghanistan Afghanistan
o Flag of Afghanistan Northern Alliance
o ISAF
* Iraq insurgency:
o Multinational force
o Flag of Iraq Iraq (Iraqi Army)
* Waziristan War:
o Flag of Pakistan Pakistan
o Flag of the United States United States
* Philippines:
o Flag of the Philippines Philippines
o Flag of the United States United States
* War in Somalia
o Flag of Ethiopia Ethiopia
o Flag of the United States United States

* al-Qaeda
* Abu Sayyaf
* Iraqi insurgency
* Hamas
* Islamic Courts Union
* Jemaah Islamiyah
* Flag of Afghanistan Taliban
* Muslim Brotherhood
* Pattani Separatists
* Jaish-e-Mohammed
* Hizbul Mujahideen
* Kurdistan Workers Party
* Hezbollah
* Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
* Lashkar-e-Toiba

and others
Related Articles

* Timeline
* Casualties
* Theaters
* Criticism

* Abu Ghraib prison
* Axis of Evil
* Bush Doctrine
* CIA run Black sites
* Combatant Status Review Tribunal
* Enhanced interrogation techniques
* Extrajudicial prisoners of the US
* Extraordinary rendition
* Guantanamo Bay detention camp
* Military Commissions Act
* NSA electronic surveillance program
* Protect America Act of 2007
* Unitary executive theory
* Unlawful combatant
* USA PATRIOT Act

[hide]
v • d • e
USA PATRIOT Act
Titles I – II – III – IV – V – VI – VII – VIII – IX – X
Statute Legislative and Judicial History
History of the USA PATRIOT Act
Acts modified
Wiretap Statute · Electronic Communications Privacy Act · Computer Fraud and Abuse Act · Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act · Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act · Money Laundering Control Act · Bank Secrecy Act · Right to Financial Privacy Act · Fair Credit Reporting Act · Immigration and Nationality Act of 1956 · Victims of Crime Act of 1984 · Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act
People
George W. Bush · John Ashcroft · Alberto Gonzales · Patrick Leahy · Orrin Hatch · Jon Kyl · Dianne Feinstein · Viet D. Dinh · Jim Dempsey · Chuck Schumer · Lamar S. Smith · Bob Graham · Jay Rockefeller · Arlen Specter · Mike Oxley · Dick Armey · Paul Sarbanes · Trent Lott · Tom Daschle · Russ Feingold · Ellen Huvelle · Ron Paul · Lisa Murkowski · Ron Wyden · Dennis Kucinich · Larry Craig · John E. Sununu · Richard Durbin · Bernie Sanders · Jerrold Nadler · John Conyers, Jr. · Butch Otter
Government organizations
Federal Bureau of Investigation · Department of Justice · Select Committee on Intelligence · Department of the Treasury · FinCEN · National Crime Information Center · Department of State · National Institute of Standards and Technology · Customs Service · Immigration and Naturalization Service
Non-government organizations
American Civil Liberties Union · American Library Association · Bill of Rights Defense Committee · Center for Democracy and Technology · Center for Public Integrity · Electronic Frontier Foundation · Electronic Privacy Information Center · Humanitarian Law Project

conduct indicating a need for supervision is not required by the schools, but yet they are paid for supervising.......

2008-04-16T03:29:00.000-07:00

FAMILY CODE

TITLE 3. JUVENILE JUSTICE CODE

CHAPTER 51. GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 51.01. PURPOSE AND INTERPRETATION. This title shall
be construed to effectuate the following public purposes:
(1) to provide for the protection of the public and
public safety;
(2) consistent with the protection of the public and
public safety:
(A) to promote the concept of punishment for
criminal acts;
(B) to remove, where appropriate, the taint of
criminality from children committing certain unlawful acts; and
(C) to provide treatment, training, and
rehabilitation that emphasizes the accountability and
responsibility of both the parent and the child for the child's
conduct;
(3) to provide for the care, the protection, and the
wholesome moral, mental, and physical development of children
coming within its provisions;
(4) to protect the welfare of the community and to
control the commission of unlawful acts by children;
(5) to achieve the foregoing purposes in a family
environment whenever possible, separating the child from the
child's parents only when necessary for the child's welfare or in
the interest of public safety and when a child is removed from the
child's family, to give the child the care that should be provided
by parents; and
(6) to provide a simple judicial procedure through
which the provisions of this title are executed and enforced and in
which the parties are assured a fair hearing and their
constitutional and other legal rights recognized and enforced.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 1996.

§ 51.02. DEFINITIONS. In this title:
(1) "Aggravated controlled substance felony" means an
offense under Subchapter D, Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code,
that is punishable by:
(A) a minimum term of confinement that is longer
than the minimum term of confinement for a felony of the first
degree; or
(B) a maximum fine that is greater than the
maximum fine for a felony of the first degree.
(2) "Child" means a person who is:
(A) ten years of age or older and under 17 years
of age; or
(B) seventeen years of age or older and under 18
years of age who is alleged or found to have engaged in delinquent
conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision as a result of
acts committed before becoming 17 years of age.
(3) "Custodian" means the adult with whom the child
resides.
(4) "Guardian" means the person who, under court
order, is the guardian of the person of the child or the public or
private agency with whom the child has been placed by a court.
(5) "Judge" or "juvenile court judge" means the judge
of a juvenile court.
(6) "Juvenile court" means a court designated under
Section 51.04 of this code to exercise jurisdiction over
proceedings under this title.
(7) "Law-enforcement officer" means a peace officer as
defined by Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(8) "Nonoffender" means a child who:
(A) is subject to jurisdiction of a court under
abuse, dependency, or neglect statutes under Title 5 for reasons
other than legally prohibited conduct of the child; or
(B) has been taken into custody and is being held
solely for deportation out of the United States.
(9) "Parent" means the mother or the father of a child,
but does not include a parent whose parental rights have been
terminated.
(10) "Party" means the state, a child who is the
subject of proceedings under this subtitle, or the child's parent,
spouse, guardian, or guardian ad litem.
(11) "Prosecuting attorney" means the county
attorney, district attorney, or other attorney who regularly serves
in a prosecutory capacity in a juvenile court.
(12) "Referral to juvenile court" means the referral
of a child or a child's case to the office or official, including an
intake officer or probation officer, designated by the juvenile
board to process children within the juvenile justice system.
(13) "Secure correctional facility" means any public
or private residential facility, including an alcohol or other drug
treatment facility, that:
(A) includes construction fixtures designed to
physically restrict the movements and activities of juveniles or
other individuals held in lawful custody in the facility; and
(B) is used for the placement of any juvenile who
has been adjudicated as having committed an offense, any
nonoffender, or any other individual convicted of a criminal
offense.
(14) "Secure detention facility" means any public or
private residential facility that:
(A) includes construction fixtures designed to
physically restrict the movements and activities of juveniles or
other individuals held in lawful custody in the facility; and
(B) is used for the temporary placement of any
juvenile who is accused of having committed an offense, any
nonoffender, or any other individual accused of having committed a
criminal offense.
(15) "Status offender" means a child who is accused,
adjudicated, or convicted for conduct that would not, under state
law, be a crime if committed by an adult, including:
(A) truancy under Section 51.03(b)(2);
(B) running away from home under Section
51.03(b)(3);
(C) a fineable only offense under Section
51.03(b)(1) transferred to the juvenile court under Section
51.08(b), but only if the conduct constituting the offense would
not have been criminal if engaged in by an adult;
(D) failure to attend school under Section
25.094, Education Code;
(E) a violation of standards of student conduct
as described by Section 51.03(b)(5);
(F) a violation of a juvenile curfew ordinance or
order;
(G) a violation of a provision of the Alcoholic
Beverage Code applicable to minors only; or
(H) a violation of any other fineable only
offense under Section 8.07(a)(4) or (5), Penal Code, but only if the
conduct constituting the offense would not have been criminal if
engaged in by an adult.
(16) "Traffic offense" means:
(A) a violation of a penal statute cognizable
under Chapter 729, Transportation Code, except for conduct for
which the person convicted may be sentenced to imprisonment or
confinement in jail; or
(B) a violation of a motor vehicle traffic
ordinance of an incorporated city or town in this state.
(17) "Valid court order" means a court order entered
under Section 54.04 concerning a child adjudicated to have engaged
in conduct indicating a need for supervision as a status offender.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 2152, ch. 693, § 1, eff.
Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 3, eff. Jan. 1,
1996; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 6.06, 30.182, eff. Sept.
1, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 822, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997;
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1013, § 13, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts
1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1086, § 41, 47, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts
2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, § 2.02, eff. June 14, 2001; Acts 2001,
77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th
Leg., ch. 283, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 1, eff. September 1, 2005.

§ 51.03. DELINQUENT CONDUCT; CONDUCT INDICATING A NEED
FOR SUPERVISION. (a) Delinquent conduct is:
(1) conduct, other than a traffic offense, that
violates a penal law of this state or of the United States
punishable by imprisonment or by confinement in jail;
(2) conduct that violates a lawful order of a court
under circumstances that would constitute contempt of that court
in:
(A) a justice or municipal court; or
(B) a county court for conduct punishable only by
a fine;
(3) conduct that violates Section 49.04, 49.05, 49.06,
49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code; or
(4) conduct that violates Section 106.041, Alcoholic
Beverage Code, relating to driving under the influence of alcohol
by a minor (third or subsequent offense).
(b) Conduct indicating a need for supervision is:
(1) subject to Subsection (f), conduct, other than a
traffic offense, that violates:
(A) the penal laws of this state of the grade of
misdemeanor that are punishable by fine only; or
(B) the penal ordinances of any political
subdivision of this state;
(2) the absence of a child on 10 or more days or parts
of days within a six-month period in the same school year or on
three or more days or parts of days within a four-week period from
school;
(3) the voluntary absence of a child from the child's
home without the consent of the child's parent or guardian for a
substantial length of time or without intent to return;
(4) conduct prohibited by city ordinance or by state
law involving the inhalation of the fumes or vapors of paint and
other protective coatings or glue and other adhesives and the
volatile chemicals itemized in Section 485.001, Health and Safety
Code;
(5) an act that violates a school district's
previously communicated written standards of student conduct for
which the child has been expelled under Section 37.007(c),
Education Code; or
(6) conduct that violates a reasonable and lawful
order of a court entered under Section 264.305.
(c) Nothing in this title prevents criminal proceedings
against a child for perjury.
(d) It is an affirmative defense to an allegation of conduct
under Subsection (b)(2) that one or more of the absences required to
be proven under that subsection have been excused by a school
official or by the court or that one or more of the absences were
involuntary, but only if there is an insufficient number of
unexcused or voluntary absences remaining to constitute conduct
under Subsection (b)(2). The burden is on the respondent to show
by a preponderance of the evidence that the absence has been or
should be excused or that the absence was involuntary. A decision
by the court to excuse an absence for purposes of this subsection
does not affect the ability of the school district to determine
whether to excuse the absence for another purpose.
(e) For the purposes of Subsection (b)(3), "child" does not
include a person who is married, divorced, or widowed.
(f) Except as provided by Subsection (g), conduct described
under Subsection (b)(1), other than conduct that violates Section
49.02, Penal Code, prohibiting public intoxication, does not
constitute conduct indicating a need for supervision unless the
child has been referred to the juvenile court under Section
51.08(b).
(g) In a county with a population of less than 100,000,
conduct described by Subsection (b)(1)(A) that violates Section
25.094, Education Code, is conduct indicating a need for
supervision.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 2153, ch. 693, § 2 to 4, eff.
Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 906, ch. 340, § 1, eff.
June 6, 1977; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 511, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1987; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 924, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987;
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 955, § 1, eff. June 19, 1987; Acts
1987, 70th Leg., ch. 1040, § 20, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1987,
70th Leg., ch. 1099, § 48, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1989, 71st
Leg., ch. 1100, § 3.02, eff. Aug. 28, 1989; Acts 1989, 71st
Leg., ch. 1245, § 1, 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg.,
ch. 14, § 284(35), eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch.
16, § 7.02, eff. Aug. 26, 1991; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 169,
§ 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 46, § 1,
eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 14.30, eff.
Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 4, eff. Jan. 1,
1996; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 6.07, eff. Sept. 1, 1997;
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1013, § 14, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts
1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1015, § 15, eff. June 19, 1997; Acts 1997,
75th Leg., ch. 1086, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th
Leg., ch. 1297, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg.,
ch. 1514, § 11, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch.
137, § 11, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 2, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 908, § 3, eff. September 1,
2007.

§ 51.031. HABITUAL FELONY CONDUCT. (a) Habitual
felony conduct is conduct violating a penal law of the grade of
felony, other than a state jail felony, if:
(1) the child who engaged in the conduct has at least
two previous final adjudications as having engaged in delinquent
conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony;
(2) the second previous final adjudication is for
conduct that occurred after the date the first previous
adjudication became final; and
(3) all appeals relating to the previous adjudications
considered under Subdivisions (1) and (2) have been exhausted.
(b) For purposes of this section, an adjudication is final
if the child is placed on probation or committed to the Texas Youth
Commission.
(c) An adjudication based on conduct that occurred before
January 1, 1996, may not be considered in a disposition made under
this section.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 5, eff. Jan. 1, 1996.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1086, § 2, eff. Sept. 1,
1997.

§ 51.04. JURISDICTION. (a) This title covers the
proceedings in all cases involving the delinquent conduct or
conduct indicating a need for supervision engaged in by a person who
was a child within the meaning of this title at the time the person
engaged in the conduct, and, except as provided by Subsection (h),
the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over
proceedings under this title.
(b) In each county, the county's juvenile board shall
designate one or more district, criminal district, domestic
relations, juvenile, or county courts or county courts at law as the
juvenile court, subject to Subsections (c) and (d) of this section.
(c) If the county court is designated as a juvenile court,
at least one other court shall be designated as the juvenile court.
A county court does not have jurisdiction of a proceeding involving
a petition approved by a grand jury under Section 53.045 of this
code.
(d) If the judge of a court designated in Subsection (b) or
(c) of this section is not an attorney licensed in this state, there
shall also be designated an alternate court, the judge of which is
an attorney licensed in this state.
(e) A designation made under Subsection (b) or (c) of this
section may be changed from time to time by the authorized boards or
judges for the convenience of the people and the welfare of
children. However, there must be at all times a juvenile court
designated for each county. It is the intent of the legislature
that in selecting a court to be the juvenile court of each county,
the selection shall be made as far as practicable so that the court
designated as the juvenile court will be one which is presided over
by a judge who has a sympathetic understanding of the problems of
child welfare and that changes in the designation of juvenile
courts be made only when the best interest of the public requires
it.
(f) If the judge of the juvenile court or any alternate
judge named under Subsection (b) or (c) is not in the county or is
otherwise unavailable, any magistrate may make a determination
under Section 53.02(f) or may conduct the detention hearing
provided for in Section 54.01.
(g) The juvenile board may appoint a referee to make
determinations under Section 53.02(f) or to conduct hearings under
this title. The referee shall be an attorney licensed to practice
law in this state and shall comply with Section 54.10. Payment of
any referee services shall be provided from county funds.
(h) In a county with a population of less than 100,000, the
juvenile court has concurrent jurisdiction with the justice and
municipal courts over conduct engaged in by a child that violates
Section 25.094, Education Code.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1357, ch. 514, § 1, eff. June
19, 1975; Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 2153, ch. 693, § 5 to 7, eff.
Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 1112, ch. 411, § 1, eff.
June 15, 1977; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 385, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1987; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 168, § 4, eff. Aug. 30, 1993;
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 232, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts
2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001,
77th Leg., ch. 1514, § 12, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

§ 51.041. JURISDICTION AFTER APPEAL. (a) The court
retains jurisdiction over a person, without regard to the age of the
person, for conduct engaged in by the person before becoming 17
years of age if, as a result of an appeal by the person or the state
under Chapter 56 or by the person under Article 44.47, Code of
Criminal Procedure, of an order of the court, the order is reversed
or modified and the case remanded to the court by the appellate
court.
(b) If the respondent is at least 18 years of age when the
order of remand from the appellate court is received by the juvenile
court, the juvenile court shall proceed as provided by Sections
54.02(o)-(r) for the detention of a person at least 18 years of age
in discretionary transfer proceedings. Pending retrial of the
adjudication or transfer proceeding, the juvenile court may:
(1) order the respondent released from custody;
(2) order the respondent detained in a juvenile
detention facility; or
(3) set bond and order the respondent detained in a
county adult facility if bond is not made.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 6, eff. Jan. 1, 1996.
Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 4, eff. Sept. 1,
2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 283, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

§ 51.0411. JURISDICTION FOR TRANSFER OR RELEASE
HEARING. The court retains jurisdiction over a person, without
regard to the age of the person, who is referred to the court under
Section 54.11 for transfer to the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice or release under supervision.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1086, § 3, eff. June 19, 1997.

§ 51.0412. JURISDICTION OVER INCOMPLETE
PROCEEDINGS. The court retains jurisdiction over a person,
without regard to the age of the person, who is a respondent in an
adjudication proceeding, a disposition proceeding, a proceeding to
modify disposition, or a motion for transfer of determinate
sentence probation to an appropriate district court if:
(1) the petition, motion to modify, or motion for
transfer was filed while the respondent was younger than 18 years of
age;
(2) the proceeding is not complete before the
respondent becomes 18 years of age; and
(3) the court enters a finding in the proceeding that
the prosecuting attorney exercised due diligence in an attempt to
complete the proceeding before the respondent became 18 years of
age.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 908, § 4, eff. September 1,
2007.

§ 51.042. OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF AGE OF
THE CHILD. (a) A child who objects to the jurisdiction of the
court over the child because of the age of the child must raise the
objection at the adjudication hearing or discretionary transfer
hearing, if any.
(b) A child who does not object as provided by Subsection
(a) waives any right to object to the jurisdiction of the court
because of the age of the child at a later hearing or on appeal.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 6, eff. Jan. 1, 1996.

§ 51.045. JURIES IN COUNTY COURTS AT LAW. If a provision
of this title requires a jury of 12 persons, that provision prevails
over any other law that limits the number of members of a jury in a
particular county court at law. The state and the defense are
entitled to the same number of peremptory challenges allowed in a
district court.

Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 385, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

§ 51.05. COURT SESSIONS AND FACILITIES. (a) The
juvenile court shall be deemed in session at all times. Suitable
quarters shall be provided by the commissioners court of each
county for the hearing of cases and for the use of the judge, the
probation officer, and other employees of the court.
(b) The juvenile court and the juvenile board shall report
annually to the commissioners court on the suitability of the
quarters and facilities of the juvenile court and may make
recommendations for their improvement.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 2154, ch. 693, § 8, eff.
Sept. 1, 1975.

§ 51.06. VENUE. (a) A proceeding under this title
shall be commenced in
(1) the county in which the alleged delinquent conduct
or conduct indicating a need for supervision occurred; or
(2) the county in which the child resides at the time
the petition is filed, but only if:
(A) the child was under probation supervision in
that county at the time of the commission of the delinquent conduct
or conduct indicating a need for supervision;
(B) it cannot be determined in which county the
delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision
occurred; or
(C) the county in which the child resides agrees
to accept the case for prosecution, in writing, prior to the case
being sent to the county of residence for prosecution.
(b) An application for a writ of habeas corpus brought by or
on behalf of a person who has been committed to an institution under
the jurisdiction of the Texas Youth Commission and which attacks
the validity of the judgment of commitment shall be brought in the
county in which the court that entered the judgment of commitment is
located.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 161, ch. 44, art. 1, § 1, eff.
April 26, 1983; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 7, eff. Jan. 1,
1996; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 488, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

§ 51.07. TRANSFER TO ANOTHER COUNTY FOR DISPOSITION.
When a child has been found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or
conduct indicating a need for supervision under Section 54.03, the
juvenile court may transfer the case and transcripts of records and
documents to the juvenile court of the county where the child
resides for disposition of the case under Section 54.04. Consent
by the court of the county where the child resides is not required.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.

Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 3, eff. September 1, 2005.

§ 51.071. TRANSFER OF PROBATION SUPERVISION BETWEEN
COUNTIES: COURTESY SUPERVISION PROHIBITED. Except as provided by
Section 51.075, a juvenile court or juvenile probation department
may not engage in the practice of courtesy supervision of a child on
probation.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 4, eff. September 1,
2005.

§ 51.072. TRANSFER OF PROBATION SUPERVISION BETWEEN
COUNTIES: INTERIM SUPERVISION. (a) In this section:
(1) "Receiving county" means the county to which a
child on probation has moved or intends to move.
(2) "Sending county" means the county that:
(A) originally placed the child on probation; or
(B) assumed permanent supervision of the child
under an inter-county transfer of probation supervision.
(b) When a child on probation moves or intends to move from
one county to another and intends to remain in the receiving county
for at least 60 days, the juvenile probation department of the
sending county shall request that the juvenile probation department
of the receiving county provide interim supervision of the
child. If the receiving county and the sending county are member
counties within a judicial district served by one juvenile
probation department, then a transfer of probation supervision is
not required.
(c) The juvenile probation department of the receiving
county may refuse the request to provide interim supervision only
if:
(1) the residence of the child in the receiving county
is in a residential placement facility arranged by the sending
county; or
(2) the residence of the child in the receiving county
is in a foster care placement arranged by the Department of Family
and Protective Services.
(d) The juvenile probation department of the sending county
shall initiate the request for interim supervision by electronic
communication to the probation officer designated as the
inter-county transfer officer for the juvenile probation
department of the receiving county or, in the absence of this
designation, to the chief juvenile probation officer.
(e) The juvenile probation department of the sending county
shall provide the juvenile probation department of the receiving
county with the following information in the request for interim
supervision initiated under Subsection (d):
(1) the child's name, sex, age, race, and date of
birth;
(2) the name, address, date of birth, and social
security or driver's license number, and telephone number, if
available, of the person with whom the child proposes to reside or
is residing in the receiving county;
(3) the offense for which the child is on probation;
(4) the length of the child's probation term;
(5) a brief summary of the child's history of
referrals;
(6) a brief statement of any special needs of the
child;
(7) the name and telephone number of the child's school
in the receiving county, if available; and
(8) the reason for the child moving or intending to
move to the receiving county.
(f) Not later than 10 business days after a receiving county
has agreed to provide interim supervision of a child, the juvenile
probation department of the sending county shall provide the
juvenile probation department of the receiving county with a copy
of the following documents:
(1) the petition and the adjudication and disposition
orders for the child, including the child's thumbprint;
(2) the child's conditions of probation;
(3) the social history report for the child;
(4) any psychological or psychiatric reports
concerning the child;
(5) the Department of Public Safety CR 43J form or
tracking incident number concerning the child;
(6) any law enforcement incident reports concerning
the offense for which the child is on probation;
(7) any sex offender registration information
concerning the child;
(8) any juvenile probation department progress
reports concerning the child and any other pertinent documentation
for the child's probation officer;
(9) case plans concerning the child;
(10) the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission standard
assessment tool results for the child;
(11) the computerized referral and case history for
the child, including case disposition;
(12) the child's birth certificate;
(13) the child's social security number or social
security card, if available;
(14) the name, address, and telephone number of the
contact person in the sending county's juvenile probation
department;
(15) Title IV-E eligibility screening information for
the child, if available;
(16) the address in the sending county for forwarding
funds collected to which the sending county is entitled;
(17) any of the child's school or immunization records
that the juvenile probation department of the sending county
possesses; and
(18) any victim information concerning the case for
which the child is on probation.
(f-1) The inter-county transfer officers in the sending and
receiving counties shall agree on the official start date for the
period of interim supervision, which must begin no later than three
business days after the date the documents required under
Subsection (f) have been received and accepted by the receiving
county.
(g) The juvenile probation department of the receiving
county shall supervise the child under the probation conditions
imposed by the sending county and provide services similar to those
provided to a child placed on probation under the same conditions in
the receiving county. On request of the juvenile probation
department of the receiving county, the juvenile court of the
receiving county may modify the original probation conditions and
impose new conditions using the procedures in Section 54.05. The
juvenile court of the receiving county may not modify a financial
probation condition imposed by the juvenile court of the sending
county or the length of the child's probation term. The juvenile
court of the receiving county shall designate a cause number for
identifying the modification proceedings.
(h) The juvenile court of the sending county may revoke
probation for a violation of a condition imposed by the juvenile
court of the sending county only if the condition has not been
specifically modified or replaced by the juvenile court of the
receiving county. The juvenile court of the receiving county may
revoke probation for a violation of a condition of probation that
the juvenile court of the receiving county has modified or imposed.
(i) If a child is reasonably believed to have violated a
condition of probation imposed by the juvenile court of the sending
county, the juvenile court of the sending or receiving county may
issue a directive to apprehend or detain the child in a certified
detention facility, as in other cases of probation violation. In
order to respond to a probation violation under this subsection,
the juvenile court of the receiving county may:
(1) modify the conditions of probation or extend the
probation term; or
(2) require that the juvenile probation department of
the sending county resume direct supervision for the child.
(j) On receiving a directive from the juvenile court of the
receiving county under Subsection (i)(2), the juvenile probation
department of the sending county shall arrange for the prompt
transportation of the child back to the sending county at the
expense of the sending county. The juvenile probation department
in the receiving county shall provide the sending county with
supporting written documentation of the incidents of violation of
probation on which the request to resume direct supervision is
based.
(k) The juvenile probation department of the receiving
county is entitled to any probation supervision fees collected from
the child or the child's parent while providing interim supervision
for the child. During the period of interim supervision, the
receiving county shall collect and distribute to the victim
monetary restitution payments in the manner specified by the
sending county. At the expiration of the period of interim
supervision, the receiving county shall collect and distribute
directly to the victim any remaining payments.
(l) The sending county is financially responsible for any
special treatment program or placement that the juvenile court of
the sending county requires as a condition of probation if the
child's family is financially unable to pay for the program or
placement.
(m) Except as provided by Subsection (n), a period of
interim supervision may not exceed 180 days. Permanent
supervision automatically transfers to the juvenile probation
department of the receiving county after the expiration of the
period of interim supervision. The juvenile probation department
of the receiving county may request permanent supervision from the
juvenile probation department of the sending county at any time
before the 180-day interim supervision period expires. After
signing and entry of an order of transfer of permanent supervision
by the sending county juvenile court, the juvenile probation
department shall, in accordance with Section 51.073(b), promptly
send the permanent supervision order and related documents to the
receiving county.
(m-1) If a child on interim supervision moves to another
county of residence or is otherwise no longer in the receiving
county before the expiration of 180 days, the receiving county
shall direct the sending county to resume supervision of the child.
(n) Notwithstanding Subsection (m), the period of interim
supervision of a child who is placed on probation under Section
54.04(q) does not expire until the child has satisfactorily
completed the greater of either 180 days or one-third of the term of
probation, including one-third of the term of any extension of the
probation term ordered under Section 54.05. Permanent supervision
automatically transfers to the probation department of the
receiving county after the expiration of the period of interim
supervision under this subsection. If the state elects to initiate
transfer proceedings under Section 54.051, the juvenile court of
the sending county may order transfer of the permanent supervision
before the expiration of the period of interim supervision under
this subsection.
(o) At least once every 90 days during the period of interim
supervision, the juvenile probation department of the receiving
county shall provide the juvenile probation department of the
sending county with a progress report of supervision concerning the
child.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 4, eff. September 1,
2005.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 908, § 5, eff. September 1,
2007.

§ 51.073. TRANSFER OF PROBATION SUPERVISION BETWEEN
COUNTIES: PERMANENT SUPERVISION. (a) In this section:
(1) "Receiving county" means the county to which a
child on probation has moved or intends to move.
(2) "Sending county" means the county that:
(A) originally placed the child on probation; or
(B) assumed permanent supervision of the child
under an inter-county transfer of probation supervision.
(b) On transfer of permanent supervision of a child under
Section 51.072(m) or (n), the juvenile court of the sending county
shall order the juvenile probation department of the sending county
to provide the juvenile probation department of the receiving
county with the order of transfer. On receipt of the order of
transfer, the juvenile probation department of the receiving county
shall ensure that the order of transfer, the petition, the order of
adjudication, the order of disposition, and the conditions of
probation are filed with the clerk of the juvenile court of the
receiving county.
(c) The juvenile court of the receiving county shall require
that the child be brought before the court in order to impose new or
different conditions of probation than those originally ordered by
the sending county or ordered by the receiving county during the
period of interim supervision. The child shall be represented by
counsel as provided by Section 51.10.
(d) Once permanent supervision is transferred to the
juvenile probation department of the receiving county, the
receiving county is fully responsible for selecting and imposing
conditions of probation, providing supervision, modifying
conditions of probation, and revoking probation. The sending
county has no further jurisdiction over the child's case.
(d-1) On the final transfer of a case involving a child who
has been adjudicated as having committed an offense for which
registration is required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal
Procedure, the receiving county shall have jurisdiction to conduct
a hearing under that chapter. This subsection does not prohibit
the receiving county juvenile court from considering the written
recommendations of the sending county juvenile court.
(e) This section does not affect the sending county's
jurisdiction over any new offense committed by the child in the
sending county.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 4, eff. September 1,
2005.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 908, § 6, eff. September 1,
2007.

§ 51.074. TRANSFER OF PROBATION SUPERVISION BETWEEN
COUNTIES: DEFERRED PROSECUTION. (a) A juvenile court may
transfer interim supervision, but not permanent supervision, to the
county where a child on deferred prosecution resides.
(b) On an extension of a previous order of deferred
prosecution authorized under Section 53.03(j), the child shall
remain on interim supervision for an additional period not to
exceed 180 days.
(c) On a violation of the conditions of the original
deferred prosecution agreement, the receiving county shall forward
the case to the sending county for prosecution or other action in
the manner provided by Sections 51.072(i) and (j), except that the
original conditions of deferred prosecution may not be modified by
the receiving county.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 4, eff. September 1,
2005.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 908, § 7, eff. September 1,
2007.

§ 51.075. COLLABORATIVE SUPERVISION BETWEEN ADJOINING
COUNTIES. (a) If a child who is on probation in one county spends
substantial time in an adjoining county, including residing,
attending school, or working in the adjoining county, the juvenile
probation departments of the two counties may enter into a
collaborative supervision arrangement regarding the child.
(b) Under a collaborative supervision arrangement, the
juvenile probation department of the adjoining county may authorize
a probation officer for the county to provide supervision and other
services for the child as an agent of the juvenile probation
department of the county in which the child was placed on
probation. The probation officer providing supervision and other
services for the child in the adjoining county shall provide the
probation officer supervising the child in the county in which the
child was placed on probation with periodic oral, electronic, or
written reports concerning the child.
(c) The juvenile court of the county in which the child was
placed on probation retains sole authority to modify, amend,
extend, or revoke the child's probation.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 4, eff. September 1,
2005.

§ 51.08. TRANSFER FROM CRIMINAL COURT. (a) If the
defendant in a criminal proceeding is a child who is charged with an
offense other than perjury, a traffic offense, a misdemeanor
punishable by fine only other than public intoxication, or a
violation of a penal ordinance of a political subdivision, unless
he has been transferred to criminal court under Section 54.02 of
this code, the court exercising criminal jurisdiction shall
transfer the case to the juvenile court, together with a copy of the
accusatory pleading and other papers, documents, and transcripts of
testimony relating to the case, and shall order that the child be
taken to the place of detention designated by the juvenile court, or
shall release him to the custody of his parent, guardian, or
custodian, to be brought before the juvenile court at a time
designated by that court.
(b) A court in which there is pending a complaint against a
child alleging a violation of a misdemeanor offense punishable by
fine only other than a traffic offense or public intoxication or a
violation of a penal ordinance of a political subdivision other
than a traffic offense:
(1) except as provided by Subsection (d), shall waive
its original jurisdiction and refer a child to juvenile court if the
child has previously been convicted of:
(A) two or more misdemeanors punishable by fine
only other than a traffic offense or public intoxication;
(B) two or more violations of a penal ordinance
of a political subdivision other than a traffic offense; or
(C) one or more of each of the types of
misdemeanors described in Paragraph (A) or (B) of this subdivision;
and
(2) may waive its original jurisdiction and refer a
child to juvenile court if the child:
(A) has not previously been convicted of a
misdemeanor punishable by fine only other than a traffic offense or
public intoxication or a violation of a penal ordinance of a
political subdivision other than a traffic offense; or
(B) has previously been convicted of fewer than
two misdemeanors punishable by fine only other than a traffic
offense or public intoxication or two violations of a penal
ordinance of a political subdivision other than a traffic offense.
(c) A court in which there is pending a complaint against a
child alleging a violation of a misdemeanor offense punishable by
fine only other than a traffic offense or public intoxication or a
violation of a penal ordinance of a political subdivision other
than a traffic offense shall notify the juvenile court of the county
in which the court is located of the pending complaint and shall
furnish to the juvenile court a copy of the final disposition of any
matter for which the court does not waive its original jurisdiction
under Subsection (b) of this section.
(d) A court that has implemented a juvenile case manager
program under Article 45.056, Code of Criminal Procedure, may, but
is not required to, waive its original jurisdiction under
Subsection (b)(1).
(e) A juvenile court may not refuse to accept the transfer
of a case brought under Section 25.094, Education Code, for a child
described by Subsection (b)(1) if a prosecuting attorney for the
court determines under Section 53.012 that the case is legally
sufficient under Section 53.01 for adjudication in juvenile court.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 1040, § 21, eff. Sept. 1,
1987; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1245, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989;
Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 169, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts
2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003,
78th Leg., ch. 283, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 650, § 1, eff. September 1, 2005.

§ 51.09. WAIVER OF RIGHTS. Unless a contrary intent
clearly appears elsewhere in this title, any right granted to a
child by this title or by the constitution or laws of this state or
the United States may be waived in proceedings under this title if:
(1) the waiver is made by the child and the attorney
for the child;
(2) the child and the attorney waiving the right are
informed of and understand the right and the possible consequences
of waiving it;
(3) the waiver is voluntary; and
(4) the waiver is made in writing or in court
proceedings that are recorded.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 2154, ch. 693, § 9, eff.
Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 84, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 64, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991;
Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 429, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts
1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 557, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1991,
72nd Leg., ch. 593, § 1, eff. Aug. 26, 1991; Acts 1995, 74th
Leg., ch. 262, § 8, 9, eff. Jan. 1, 1996; Acts 1997, 75th Leg.,
ch. 1086, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

§ 51.095. ADMISSIBILITY OF A STATEMENT OF A CHILD.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 51.09, the statement of a child is
admissible in evidence in any future proceeding concerning the
matter about which the statement was given if:
(1) the statement is made in writing under a
circumstance described by Subsection (d) and:
(A) the statement shows that the child has at
some time before the making of the statement received from a
magistrate a warning that:
(i) the child may remain silent and not make
any statement at all and that any statement that the child makes may
be used in evidence against the child;
(ii) the child has the right to have an
attorney present to advise the child either prior to any
questioning or during the questioning;
(iii) if the child is unable to employ an
attorney, the child has the right to have an attorney appointed to
counsel with the child before or during any interviews with peace
officers or attorneys representing the state; and
(iv) the child has the right to terminate
the interview at any time;
(B) and:
(i) the statement must be signed in the
presence of a magistrate by the child with no law enforcement
officer or prosecuting attorney present, except that a magistrate
may require a bailiff or a law enforcement officer if a bailiff is
not available to be present if the magistrate determines that the
presence of the bailiff or law enforcement officer is necessary for
the personal safety of the magistrate or other court personnel,
provided that the bailiff or law enforcement officer may not carry a
weapon in the presence of the child; and
(ii) the magistrate must be fully convinced
that the child understands the nature and contents of the statement
and that the child is signing the same voluntarily, and if a
statement is taken, the magistrate must sign a written statement
verifying the foregoing requisites have been met;
(C) the child knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily waives these rights before and during the making of the
statement and signs the statement in the presence of a magistrate;
and
(D) the magistrate certifies that the magistrate
has examined the child independent of any law enforcement officer
or prosecuting attorney, except as required to ensure the personal
safety of the magistrate or other court personnel, and has
determined that the child understands the nature and contents of
the statement and has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
waived these rights;
(2) the statement is made orally and the child makes a
statement of facts or circumstances that are found to be true and
tend to establish the child's guilt, such as the finding of secreted
or stolen property, or the instrument with which the child states
the offense was committed;
(3) the statement was res gestae of the delinquent
conduct or the conduct indicating a need for supervision or of the
arrest;
(4) the statement is made:
(A) in open court at the child's adjudication
hearing;
(B) before a grand jury considering a petition,
under Section 53.045, that the child engaged in delinquent conduct;
or
(C) at a preliminary hearing concerning the child
held in compliance with this code, other than at a detention hearing
under Section 54.01; or
(5) subject to Subsection (f), the statement is made
orally under a circumstance described by Subsection (d) and the
statement is recorded by an electronic recording device, including
a device that records images, and:
(A) before making the statement, the child is
given the warning described by Subdivision (1)(A) by a magistrate,
the warning is a part of the recording, and the child knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily waives each right stated in the
warning;
(B) the recording device is capable of making an
accurate recording, the operator of the device is competent to use
the device, the recording is accurate, and the recording has not
been altered;
(C) each voice on the recording is identified;
and
(D) not later than the 20th day before the date of
the proceeding, the attorney representing the child is given a
complete and accurate copy of each recording of the child made under
this subdivision.
(b) This section and Section 51.09 do not preclude the
admission of a statement made by the child if:
(1) the statement does not stem from interrogation of
the child under a circumstance described by Subsection (d); or
(2) without regard to whether the statement stems from
interrogation of the child under a circumstance described by
Subsection (d), the statement is voluntary and has a bearing on the
credibility of the child as a witness.
(c) An electronic recording of a child's statement made
under Subsection (a)(5) shall be preserved until all juvenile or
criminal matters relating to any conduct referred to in the
statement are final, including the exhaustion of all appeals, or
barred from prosecution.
(d) Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(5) apply to the statement of
a child made:
(1) while the child is in a detention facility or other
place of confinement;
(2) while the child is in the custody of an officer;
or
(3) during or after the interrogation of the child by
an officer if the child is in the possession of the Department of
Protective and Regulatory Services and is suspected to have engaged
in conduct that violates a penal law of this state.
(e) A juvenile law referee or master may perform the duties
imposed on a magistrate under this section without the approval of
the juvenile court if the juvenile board of the county in which the
statement of the child is made has authorized a referee or master to
perform the duties of a magistrate under this section.
(f) A magistrate who provides the warnings required by
Subsection (a)(5) for a recorded statement may at the time the
warnings are provided request by speaking on the recording that the
officer return the child and the recording to the magistrate at the
conclusion of the process of questioning. The magistrate may then
view the recording with the child or have the child view the
recording to enable the magistrate to determine whether the child's
statements were given voluntarily. The magistrate's determination
of voluntariness shall be reduced to writing and signed and dated by
the magistrate. If a magistrate uses the procedure described by
this subsection, a child's statement is not admissible unless the
magistrate determines that the statement was given voluntarily.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1086, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 982, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1477, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;
Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 7, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts
2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, § 21.001(29), eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 5, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 908, § 8, eff. September 1,
2007.

§ 51.10. RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF ATTORNEY;
COMPENSATION. (a) A child may be represented by an attorney at
every stage of proceedings under this title, including:
(1) the detention hearing required by Section 54.01 of
this code;
(2) the hearing to consider transfer to criminal court
required by Section 54.02 of this code;
(3) the adjudication hearing required by Section 54.03
of this code;
(4) the disposition hearing required by Section 54.04
of this code;
(5) the hearing to modify disposition required by
Section 54.05 of this code;
(6) hearings required by Chapter 55 of this code;
(7) habeas corpus proceedings challenging the
legality of detention resulting from action under this title; and
(8) proceedings in a court of civil appeals or the
Texas Supreme Court reviewing proceedings under this title.
(b) The child's right to representation by an attorney shall
not be waived in:
(1) a hearing to consider transfer to criminal court
as required by Section 54.02 of this code;
(2) an adjudication hearing as required by Section
54.03 of this code;
(3) a disposition hearing as required by Section 54.04
of this code;
(4) a hearing prior to commitment to the Texas Youth
Commission as a modified disposition in accordance with Section
54.05(f) of this code; or
(5) hearings required by Chapter 55 of this code.
(c) If the child was not represented by an attorney at the
detention hearing required by Section 54.01 of this code and a
determination was made to detain the child, the child shall
immediately be entitled to representation by an attorney. The
court shall order the retention of an attorney according to
Subsection (d) or appoint an attorney according to Subsection (f).
(d) The court shall order a child's parent or other person
responsible for support of the child to employ an attorney to
represent the child, if:
(1) the child is not represented by an attorney;
(2) after giving the appropriate parties an
opportunity to be heard, the court determines that the parent or
other person responsible for support of the child is financially
able to employ an attorney to represent the child; and
(3) the child's right to representation by an
attorney:
(A) has not been waived under Section 51.09 of
this code; or
(B) may not be waived under Subsection (b) of
this section.
(e) The court may enforce orders under Subsection (d) by
proceedings under Section 54.07 or by appointing counsel and
ordering the parent or other person responsible for support of the
child to pay a reasonable attorney's fee set by the court. The
order may be enforced under Section 54.07.
(f) The court shall appoint an attorney to represent the
interest of a child entitled to representation by an attorney, if:
(1) the child is not represented by an attorney;
(2) the court determines that the child's parent or
other person responsible for support of the child is financially
unable to employ an attorney to represent the child; and
(3) the child's right to representation by an
attorney:
(A) has not been waived under Section 51.09 of
this code; or
(B) may not be waived under Subsection (b) of
this section.
(g) The juvenile court may appoint an attorney in any case
in which it deems representation necessary to protect the interests
of the child.
(h) Any attorney representing a child in proceedings under
this title is entitled to 10 days to prepare for any adjudication or
transfer hearing under this title.
(i) Except as provided in Subsection (d) of this section, an
attorney appointed under this section to represent the interests of
a child shall be paid from the general fund of the county in which
the proceedings were instituted according to the schedule in
Article 26.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, 1965. For
this purpose, a bona fide appeal to a court of civil appeals or
proceedings on the merits in the Texas Supreme Court are considered
the equivalent of a bona fide appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals.
(j) The juvenile board of a county may make available to the
public the list of attorneys eligible for appointment to represent
children in proceedings under this title as provided in the plan
adopted under Section 51.102. The list of attorneys must indicate
the level of case for which each attorney is eligible for
appointment under Section 51.102(b)(2).
(k) Subject to Chapter 61, the juvenile court may order the
parent or other person responsible for support of the child to
reimburse the county for payments the county made to counsel
appointed to represent the child under Subsection (f) or (g). The
court may:
(1) order payment for each attorney who has
represented the child at any hearing, including a detention
hearing, discretionary transfer hearing, adjudication hearing,
disposition hearing, or modification of disposition hearing;
(2) include amounts paid to or on behalf of the
attorney by the county for preparation time and investigative and
expert witness costs; and
(3) require full or partial reimbursement to the
county.
(l) The court may not order payments under Subsection (k)
that exceed the financial ability of the parent or other person
responsible for support of the child to meet the payment schedule
ordered by the court.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 161, ch. 44, art. 1, § 2, eff.
April 26, 1983; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 11, eff. Jan. 1,
1996; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2001;
Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 283, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

§ 51.101. APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY AND CONTINUATION OF
REPRESENTATION. (a) If an attorney is appointed at the initial
detention hearing and the child is detained, the attorney shall
continue to represent the child until the case is terminated, the
family retains an attorney, or a new attorney is appointed by the
juvenile court. Release of the child from detention does not
terminate the attorney's representation.
(b) If there is an initial detention hearing without an
attorney and the child is detained, the attorney appointed under
Section 51.10(c) shall continue to represent the child until the
case is terminated, the family retains an attorney, or a new
attorney is appointed by the juvenile court. Release of the child
from detention does not terminate the attorney's representation.
(c) The juvenile court shall determine, on the filing of a
petition, whether the child's family is indigent if:
(1) the child is released by intake;
(2) the child is released at the initial detention
hearing; or
(3) the case was referred to the court without the
child in custody.
(d) A juvenile court that makes a finding of indigence under
Subsection (c) shall appoint an attorney to represent the child on
or before the fifth working day after the date the petition for
adjudication or discretionary transfer hearing was served on the
child. An attorney appointed under this subsection shall continue
to represent the child until the case is terminated, the family
retains an attorney, or a new attorney is appointed by the juvenile
court.
(e) The juvenile court shall determine whether the child's
family is indigent if a motion or petition is filed under Section
54.05 seeking to modify disposition by committing the child to the
Texas Youth Commission or placing the child in a secure
correctional facility. A court that makes a finding of indigence
shall appoint an attorney to represent the child on or before the
fifth working day after the date the petition or motion has been
filed. An attorney appointed under this subsection shall continue
to represent the child until the court rules on the motion or
petition, the family retains an attorney, or a new attorney is
appointed.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

§ 51.102. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL PLAN. (a) The
juvenile board in each county shall adopt a plan that:
(1) specifies the qualifications necessary for an
attorney to be included on an appointment list from which attorneys
are appointed to represent children in proceedings under this
title; and
(2) establishes the procedures for:
(A) including attorneys on the appointment list
and removing attorneys from the list; and
(B) appointing attorneys from the appointment
list to individual cases.
(b) A plan adopted under Subsection (a) must:
(1) to the extent practicable, comply with the
requirements of Article 26.04, Code of Criminal Procedure, except
that:
(A) the income and assets of the child's parent
or other person responsible for the child's support must be used in
determining whether the child is indigent; and
(B) any alternative plan for appointing counsel
is established by the juvenile board in the county; and
(2) recognize the differences in qualifications and
experience necessary for appointments to cases in which:
(A) the allegation is:
(i) conduct indicating a need for
supervision or delinquent conduct, and commitment to the Texas
Youth Commission is not an authorized disposition; or
(ii) delinquent conduct, and commitment to
the Texas Youth Commission without a determinate sentence is an
authorized disposition; or
(B) determinate sentence proceedings have been
initiated or proceedings for discretionary transfer to criminal
court have been initiated.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 906, § 11, eff. Jan. 1, 2002.
Renumbered from § 51.101 by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1275, §
2(51), eff. Sept. 1, 2003. Renumbered from § 51.101 and amended
by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 283, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

§ 51.11. GUARDIAN AD LITEM. (a) If a child appears
before the juvenile court without a parent or guardian, the court
shall appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of the
child. The juvenile court need not appoint a guardian ad litem if a
parent or guardian appears with the child.
(b) In any case in which it appears to the juvenile court
that the child's parent or guardian is incapable or unwilling to
make decisions in the best interest of the child with respect to
proceedings under this title, the court may appoint a guardian ad
litem to protect the interests of the child in the proceedings.
(c) An attorney for a child may also be his guardian ad
litem. A law-enforcement officer, probation officer, or other
employee of the juvenile court may not be appointed guardian ad
litem.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.

§ 51.115. ATTENDANCE AT HEARING: PARENT OR OTHER
GUARDIAN. (a) Each parent of a child, each managing and
possessory conservator of a child, each court-appointed custodian
of a child, and a guardian of the person of the child shall attend
each hearing affecting the child held under:
(1) Section 54.02 (waiver of jurisdiction and
discretionary transfer to criminal court);
(2) Section 54.03 (adjudication hearing);
(3) Section 54.04 (disposition hearing);
(4) Section 54.05 (hearing to modify disposition);
and
(5) Section 54.11 (release or transfer hearing).
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to:
(1) a person for whom, for good cause shown, the court
waives attendance;
(2) a person who is not a resident of this state; or
(3) a parent of a child for whom a managing conservator
has been appointed and the parent is not a conservator of the child.
(c) A person required under this section to attend a hearing
is entitled to reasonable written or oral notice that includes a
statement of the place, date, and time of the hearing and that the
attendance of the person is required. The notice may be included
with or attached to any other notice required by this chapter to be
given the person. Separate notice is not required for a disposition
hearing that convenes on the adjournment of an adjudication
hearing. If a person required under this section fails to attend a
hearing, the juvenile court may proceed with the hearing.
(d) A person who is required by Subsection (a) to attend a
hearing, who receives the notice of the hearing, and who fails to
attend the hearing may be punished by the court for contempt by a
fine of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000. In addition to
or in lieu of contempt, the court may order the person to receive
counseling or to attend an educational course on the duties and
responsibilities of parents and skills and techniques in raising
children.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 10, eff. Jan. 1, 1996.

§ 51.116. RIGHT TO REEMPLOYMENT. (a) An employer may
not terminate the employment of a permanent employee because the
employee is required under Section 51.115 to attend a hearing.
(b) An employee whose employment is terminated in violation
of this section is entitled to return to the same employment that
the employee held when notified of the hearing if the employee, as
soon as practical after the hearing, gives the employer actual
notice that the employee intends to return.
(c) A person who is injured because of a violation of this
section is entitled to reinstatement to the person's former
position and to damages, but the damages may not exceed an amount
equal to six months' compensation at the rate at which the person
was compensated when required to attend the hearing.
(d) The injured person is also entitled to reasonable
attorney's fees in an amount approved by the court.
(e) It is a defense to an action brought under this section
that the employer's circumstances changed while the employee
attended the hearing so that reemployment was impossible or
unreasonable. To establish a defense under this subsection, an
employer must prove that the termination of employment was because
of circumstances other than the employee's attendance at the
hearing.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 10, eff. Jan. 1, 1996.

§ 51.12. PLACE AND CONDITIONS OF DETENTION. (a) Except
as provided by Subsection (h), a child may be detained only in a:
(1) juvenile processing office in compliance with
Section 52.025;
(2) place of nonsecure custody in compliance with
Article 45.058, Code of Criminal Procedure;
(3) certified juvenile detention facility that
complies with the requirements of Subsection (f);
(4) secure detention facility as provided by
Subsection (j); or
(5) county jail or other facility as provided by
Subsection (l).
(b) The proper authorities in each county shall provide a
suitable place of detention for children who are parties to
proceedings under this title, but the juvenile board shall control
the conditions and terms of detention and detention supervision and
shall permit visitation with the child at all reasonable times.
(b-1) A pre-adjudication secure detention facility may be
operated only by:
(1) a governmental unit in this state as defined by
Section 101.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code; or
(2) a private entity under a contract with a
governmental unit in this state.
(c) In each county, each judge of the juvenile court and a
majority of the members of the juvenile board shall personally
inspect all public or private juvenile pre-adjudication secure
detention facilities that are located in the county at least
annually and shall certify in writing to the authorities
responsible for operating and giving financial support to the
facilities and to the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission that the
facilities are suitable or unsuitable for the detention of
children. In determining whether a facility is suitable or
unsuitable for the detention of children, the juvenile court judges
and juvenile board members shall consider:
(1) current monitoring and inspection reports and any
noncompliance citation reports issued by the Texas Juvenile
Probation Commission, including the report provided under
Subsection (c-1), and the status of any required corrective
actions;
(2) current governmental inspector certification
regarding the facility's compliance with local fire codes;
(3) current building inspector certification
regarding the facility's compliance with local building codes;
(4) for the 12-month period preceding the inspection,
the total number of allegations of abuse, neglect, or exploitation
reported by the facility and a summary of the findings of any
investigations of abuse, neglect, or exploitation conducted by the
facility, a local law enforcement agency, and the Texas Juvenile
Probation Commission;
(5) the availability of health and mental health
services provided to facility residents;
(6) the availability of educational services provided
to facility residents; and
(7) the overall physical appearance of the facility,
including the facility's security, maintenance, cleanliness, and
environment.
(c-1) The Texas Juvenile Probation Commission shall
annually inspect each public or private juvenile pre-adjudication
secure detention facility. The Texas Juvenile Probation
Commission shall provide a report to each juvenile court judge
presiding in the same county as an inspected facility indicating
whether the facility is suitable or unsuitable for the detention of
children in accordance with:
(1) the requirements of Subsections (a), (f), and (g);
and
(2) minimum professional standards for the detention
of children in pre-adjudication secure confinement promulgated by
the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission or, at the election of the
juvenile board of the county in which the facility is located, the
current standards promulgated by the American Correctional
Association.
(d) Except as provided by Subsections (j) and (l), a child
may not be placed in a facility that has not been certified under
Subsection (c) as suitable for the detention of children and
registered under Subsection (i). Except as provided by Subsections
(j) and (l), a child detained in a facility that has not been
certified under Subsection (c) as suitable for the detention of
children or that has not been registered under Subsection (i) shall
be entitled to immediate release from custody in that facility.
(e) If there is no certified place of detention in the
county in which the petition is filed, the designated place of
detention may be in another county.
(f) A child detained in a building that contains a jail,
lockup, or other place of secure confinement, including an alcohol
or other drug treatment facility, shall be separated by sight and
sound from adults detained in the same building. Children and
adults are separated by sight and sound only if they are unable to
see each other and conversation between them is not possible. The
separation must extend to all areas of the facility, including
sally ports and passageways, and those areas used for admission,
counseling, sleeping, toileting, showering, dining, recreational,
educational, or vocational activities, and health care. The
separation may be accomplished through architectural design.
(g) Except for a child detained in a juvenile processing
office, a place of nonsecure custody, a secure detention facility
as provided by Subsection (j), or a facility as provided by
Subsection (l), a child detained in a building that contains a jail
or lockup may not have any contact with:
(1) part-time or full-time security staff, including
management, who have contact with adults detained in the same
building; or
(2) direct-care staff who have contact with adults
detained in the same building.
(h) This section does not apply to a person:
(1) after transfer to criminal court for prosecution
under Section 54.02; or
(2) who is at least 17 years of age and who has been
taken into custody after having:
(A) escaped from a juvenile facility operated by
or under contract with the Texas Youth Commission; or
(B) violated a condition of release under
supervision of the Texas Youth Commission.
(i) Except for a facility as provided by Subsection (l), a
governmental unit or private entity that operates or contracts for
the operation of a juvenile pre-adjudication secure detention
facility under Subsection (b-1) in this state shall:
(1) register the facility annually with the Texas
Juvenile Probation Commission; and
(2) adhere to all applicable minimum standards for the
facility.
(j) After being taken into custody, a child may be detained
in a secure detention facility until the child is released under
Section 53.01, 53.012, or 53.02 or until a detention hearing is held
under Section 54.01(a), regardless of whether the facility has been
certified under Subsection (c), if:
(1) a certified juvenile detention facility is not
available in the county in which the child is taken into custody;
(2) the detention facility complies with:
(A) the short-term detention standards adopted
by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission; and
(B) the requirements of Subsection (f); and
(3) the detention facility has been designated by the
county juvenile board for the county in which the facility is
located.
(k) If a child who is detained under Subsection (j) or (l) is
not released from detention at the conclusion of the detention
hearing for a reason stated in Section 54.01(e), the child may be
detained after the hearing only in a certified juvenile detention
facility.
(l) A child who is taken into custody and required to be
detained under Section 53.02(f) may be detained in a county jail or
other facility until the child is released under Section 53.02(f)
or until a detention hearing is held as required by Section
54.01(p), regardless of whether the facility complies with the
requirements of this section, if:
(1) a certified juvenile detention facility or a
secure detention facility described by Subsection (j) is not
available in the county in which the child is taken into custody or
in an adjacent county;
(2) the facility has been designated by the county
juvenile board for the county in which the facility is located;
(3) the child is separated by sight and sound from
adults detained in the same facility through architectural design
or time-phasing;
(4) the child does not have any contact with
management or direct-care staff that has contact with adults
detained in the same facility on the same work shift;
(5) the county in which the child is taken into custody
is not located in a metropolitan statistical area as designated by
the United States Bureau of the Census; and
(6) each judge of the juvenile court and a majority of
the members of the juvenile board of the county in which the child
is taken into custody have personally inspected the facility at
least annually and have certified in writing to the Texas Juvenile
Probation Commission that the facility complies with the
requirements of Subdivisions (3) and (4).
(m) The Texas Juvenile Probation Commission may deny,
suspend, or revoke the registration of any facility required to
register under Subsection (i) if the facility fails to:
(1) adhere to all applicable minimum standards for the
facility; or
(2) timely correct any notice of noncompliance with
minimum standards.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 2155, ch. 693, § 10, 11, eff.
Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 293, § 1, eff. Aug. 26,
1985; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 31, eff. Sept. 1, 1987;
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 12, eff. Jan. 1, 1996; Acts
1997, 75th Leg., ch. 772, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997,
75th Leg., ch. 1374, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th
Leg., ch. 62, § 6.07, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg.,
ch. 232, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1477,
§ 2, eff; Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, §
10, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1514, § 13,
eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 263, § 5, eff. June 8,
2007.

§ 51.125. POST-ADJUDICATION CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES.
(a) A post-adjudication secure correctional facility for juvenile
offenders may be operated only by:
(1) a governmental unit in this state as defined by
Section 101.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code; or
(2) a private entity under a contract with a
governmental unit in this state.
(b) In each county, each judge of the juvenile court and a
majority of the members of the juvenile board shall personally
inspect all public or private juvenile post-adjudication secure
correctional facilities that are not operated by the Texas Youth
Commission and that are located in the county at least annually and
shall certify in writing to the authorities responsible for
operating and giving financial support to the facilities and to the
Texas Juvenile Probation Commission that the facility or facilities
are suitable or unsuitable for the confinement of children. In
determining whether a facility is suitable or unsuitable for the
confinement of children, the juvenile court judges and juvenile
board members shall consider:
(1) current monitoring and inspection reports and any
noncompliance citation reports issued by the Texas Juvenile
Probation Commission, including the report provided under
Subsection (c), and the status of any required corrective actions;
and
(2) the other factors described under Sections
51.12(c)(2)-(7).
(c) The Texas Juvenile Probation Commission shall annually
inspect each public or private juvenile post-adjudication secure
correctional facility that is not operated by the Texas Youth
Commission. The Texas Juvenile Probation Commission shall provide
a report to each juvenile court judge presiding in the same county
as an inspected facility indicating whether the facility is
suitable or unsuitable for the confinement of children in
accordance with minimum professional standards for the confinement
of children in post-adjudication secure confinement promulgated by
the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission or, at the election of the
juvenile board of the county in which the facility is located, the
current standards promulgated by the American Correctional
Association.
(d) A governmental unit or private entity that operates or
contracts for the operation of a juvenile post-adjudication secure
correctional facility in this state under Subsection (a), except
for a facility operated by or under contract with the Texas Youth
Commission, shall:
(1) register the facility annually with the Texas
Juvenile Probation Commission; and
(2) adhere to all applicable minimum standards for the
facility.
(e) The Texas Juvenile Probation Commission may deny,
suspend, or revoke the registration of any facility required to
register under Subsection (d) if the facility fails to:
(1) adhere to all applicable minimum standards for the
facility; or
(2) timely correct any notice of noncompliance with
minimum standards.

Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 263, § 6, eff. June 8,
2007.

§ 51.13. EFFECT OF ADJUDICATION OR DISPOSITION.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an order of adjudication
or disposition in a proceeding under this title is not a conviction
of crime. Except as provided by Chapter 841, Health and Safety
Code, an order of adjudication or disposition does not impose any
civil disability ordinarily resulting from a conviction or operate
to disqualify the child in any civil service application or
appointment.
(b) The adjudication or disposition of a child or evidence
adduced in a hearing under this title may be used only in
subsequent:
(1) proceedings under this title in which the child is
a party;
(2) sentencing proceedings in criminal court against
the child to the extent permitted by the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1965; or
(3) civil commitment proceedings under Chapter 841,
Health and Safety Code.
(c) A child may not be committed or transferred to a penal
institution or other facility used primarily for the execution of
sentences of persons convicted of crime, except:
(1) for temporary detention in a jail or lockup
pending juvenile court hearing or disposition under conditions
meeting the requirements of Section 51.12 of this code;
(2) after transfer for prosecution in criminal court
under Section 54.02 of this code; or
(3) after transfer from the Texas Youth Commission
under Section 61.084, Human Resources Code.
(d) An adjudication under Section 54.03 that a child engaged
in conduct that occurred on or after January 1, 1996, and that
constitutes a felony offense resulting in commitment to the Texas
Youth Commission under Section 54.04(d)(2), (d)(3), or (m) or
54.05(f) is a final felony conviction only for the purposes of
Sections 12.42(a), (b), (c)(1), and (e), Penal Code.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 385, § 3, eff. Sept. 1,
1987; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 799, § 1, eff. June 18, 1993;
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 13, eff. Jan. 1, 1996; Acts
1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1086, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999,
76th Leg., ch. 1188, § 4.02, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th
Leg., ch. 283, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

§ 51.151. POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION. If a child is taken
into custody under Section 52.01 of this code, a person may not
administer a polygraph examination to the child without the consent
of the child's attorney or the juvenile court unless the child is
transferred to criminal court for prosecution under Section 54.02
of this code.

Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 708, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

§ 51.17. PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE. (a) Except for the
burden of proof to be borne by the state in adjudicating a child to
be delinquent or in need of supervision under Section 54.03(f) or
otherwise when in conflict with a provision of this title, the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure govern proceedings under this title.
(b) Discovery in a proceeding under this title is governed
by the Code of Criminal Procedure and by case decisions in criminal
cases.
(c) Except as otherwise provided by this title, the Texas
Rules of Evidence apply to criminal cases and Articles 33.03 and
37.07 and Chapter 38, Code of Criminal Procedure, apply in a
judicial proceeding under this title.
(d) When on the motion for appointment of an interpreter by
a party or on the motion of the juvenile court, in any proceeding
under this title, the court determines that the child, the child's
parent or guardian, or a witness does not understand and speak
English, an interpreter must be sworn to interpret for the person as
provided by Article 38.30, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(e) In any proceeding under this title, if a party notifies
the court that the child, the child's parent or guardian, or a
witness is deaf, the court shall appoint a qualified interpreter to
interpret the proceedings in any language, including sign language,
that the deaf person can understand, as provided by Article 38.31,
Code of Criminal Procedure.
(f) Any requirement under this title that a document contain
a person's signature, including the signature of a judge or a clerk
of the court, is satisfied if the document contains the signature of
the person as captured on an electronic device or as a digital
signature. Article 2.26, Code of Criminal Procedure, applies in a
proceeding held under this title.
(g) Articles 21.07, 26.07, 26.08, 26.09, and 26.10, Code of
Criminal Procedure, relating to the name of an adult defendant in a
criminal case, apply to a child in a proceeding held under this
title.
(h) Articles 57.01 and 57.02, Code of Criminal Procedure,
relating to the use of a pseudonym by a victim in a criminal case,
apply in a proceeding held under this title.
(i) Except as provided by Section 56.03(f), the state is not
required to pay any cost or fee otherwise imposed for court
proceedings in either the trial or appellate courts.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 14, eff. Jan. 1,
1996; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1477, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;
Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 283, § 7, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 6, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 908, § 9, eff. September 1,
2007.

§ 51.18. ELECTION BETWEEN JUVENILE COURT AND ALTERNATE
JUVENILE COURT. (a) This section applies only to a child who has a
right to a trial before a juvenile court the judge of which is not an
attorney licensed in this state.
(b) On any matter that may lead to an order appealable under
Section 56.01 of this code, a child may be tried before either the
juvenile court or the alternate juvenile court.
(c) The child may elect to be tried before the alternate
juvenile court only if the child files a written notice with that
court not later than 10 days before the date of the trial. After the
notice is filed, the child may be tried only in the alternate
juvenile court. If the child does not file a notice as provided by
this subsection, the child may be tried only in the juvenile court.
(d) If the child is tried before the juvenile court, the
child is not entitled to a trial de novo before the alternate
juvenile court.
(e) The child may appeal any order of the juvenile court or
alternate juvenile court only as provided by Section 56.01 of this
code.

Added by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 1112, ch. 411, § 2, eff. June
15, 1977. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 168, § 3, eff.
Aug. 30, 1993.

§ 51.19. LIMITATION PERIODS. (a) The limitation
periods and the procedures for applying the limitation periods
under Chapter 12, Code of Criminal Procedure, and other statutory
law apply to proceedings under this title.
(b) For purposes of computing a limitation period, a
petition filed in juvenile court for a transfer or an adjudication
hearing is equivalent to an indictment or information and is
treated as presented when the petition is filed in the proper court.
(c) The limitation period is two years for an offense or
conduct that is not given a specific limitation period under
Chapter 12, Code of Criminal Procedure, or other statutory law.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1086, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

§ 51.20. PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXAMINATION. (a) At any
stage of the proceedings under this title, the juvenile court may
order a child who is referred to the juvenile court or who is
alleged by a petition or found to have engaged in delinquent conduct
or conduct indicating a need for supervision to be examined by a
disinterested expert, including a physician, psychiatrist, or
psychologist, qualified by education and clinical training in
mental health or mental retardation and experienced in forensic
evaluation, to determine whether the child has a mental illness as
defined by Section 571.003, Health and Safety Code, or is a person
with mental retardation as defined by Section 591.003, Health and
Safety Code. If the examination is to include a determination of
the child's fitness to proceed, an expert may be appointed to
conduct the examination only if the expert is qualified under
Subchapter B, Chapter 46B, Code of Criminal Procedure, to examine a
defendant in a criminal case, and the examination and the report
resulting from an examination under this subsection must comply
with the requirements under Subchapter B, Chapter 46B, Code of
Criminal Procedure, for the examination and resulting report of a
defendant in a criminal case.
(b) If, after conducting an examination of a child ordered
under Subsection (a) and reviewing any other relevant information,
there is reason to believe that the child has a mental illness or
mental retardation, the probation department shall refer the child
to the local mental health or mental retardation authority for
evaluation and services, unless the prosecuting attorney has filed
a petition under Section 53.04.
(c) If, while a child is under deferred prosecution
supervision or court-ordered probation, a qualified professional
determines that the child has a mental illness or mental
retardation and the child is not currently receiving treatment
services for the mental illness or mental retardation, the
probation department shall refer the child to the local mental
health or mental retardation authority for evaluation and services.
(d) A probation department shall report each referral of a
child to a local mental health or mental retardation authority made
under Subsection (b) or (c) to the Texas Juvenile Probation
Commission in a format specified by the commission.
(e) At any stage of the proceedings under this title, the
juvenile court may order a child who has been referred to the
juvenile court or who is alleged by the petition or found to have
engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for
supervision to be subjected to a physical examination by a licensed
physician.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1477, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 828, § 5(a), eff. Sept. 1,
2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 35, § 6, eff. Jan. 1, 2004.

Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 7, eff. September 1, 2005.

§ 51.21. MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING AND REFERRAL. (a) A
probation department that administers the mental health screening
instrument or clinical assessment required by Section 141.042(e),
Human Resources Code, shall refer the child to the local mental
health authority for assessment and evaluation if:
(1) the child's scores on the screening instrument or
clinical assessment indicate a need for further mental health
assessment and evaluation; and
(2) the department and child do not have access to an
internal, contract, or private mental health professional.
(b) A probation department shall report each referral of a
child to a local mental health authority made under Subsection (a)
to the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission in a format specified by
the commission.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 8, eff. September 1,
2005.

Will Alan Dershowitz take this case Pro Bono????

2007-09-18T21:17:00.000-07:00

A Nebraska state senator sues God

Associated Press
Tuesday, September 18, 2007

The defendant in a state senator's lawsuit is accused of causing untold death and horror and threatening to cause more still. He can be sued in Douglas County, the legislator claims, because He's everywhere.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers sued God last week. Angered by another lawsuit he considers frivolous, Chambers says he's trying to make the point that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody.

Chambers says in his lawsuit that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

The Omaha senator, who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, also says God has caused "fearsome floods ... horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes."

He's seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty.

Chambers said the lawsuit was triggered by a federal suit filed against a judge who recently barred words such as "rape" and "victim" from a sexual assault trial.

The accuser in the criminal case, Tory Bowen, sued Lancaster District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront, claiming that he violated her free speech rights.

Chambers said Bowen's lawsuit is inappropriate because the Nebraska Supreme Court has already considered the case and federal courts follow the decisions of state supreme courts on state matters.

"This lawsuit having been filed and being of such questionable merit creates a circumstance where my lawsuit is appropriately filed," Chambers said. "People might call it frivolous but if they read it they'll see there are very serious issues I have raised."

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf, in an order last week, expressed doubts about whether Bowen's lawsuit "has any legal basis whatsoever" and said sanctions may be imposed against Bowen and her attorneys if they fail to show cause for the lawsuit.

The Associated Press usually does not identify accusers in sex-assault cases, but Bowen has allowed her name to be used publicly because of the issue over the judge's language restrictions.

Cheuvront declared a mistrial in the sexual assault trial in July, saying pretrial publicity made it impossible to gather enough impartial jurors.

View latest stories with comments »
Before you post a comment, consider this:

* 1. Keep it clean.Comments that are obscene, vulgar, lewd or sexually-oriented will get the ax. Creative spelling of such terms also will be banned.
* 2. Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
* 3. Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything.
* 4. Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
* 6. Keep it local. Do not post direct links to sites outside of Caller.com.
* 7. Police yourselves. Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
* 8. Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
* 9. Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
* 10. Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
* 11.Help us get it right. If you find a factual error or misspelling, email newmedia@caller.com or metrodesk@caller.com, or call 886-3697.

Post Your Comments

Posted by mike.hunt3168 on September 18, 2007 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA this just made my morning I guess some one should sue the devil and Mohammad

Posted by smunizcc on September 18, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Can you say "burning bridges"? I foresee an upper managment position in a very bad place for him when he departs this world...better pack warm.

Posted by smunizcc on September 18, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can see the point he is trying to make...but man, he choose the wrong message.

Posted by rrempp on September 18, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mike.hunt3168___________________________You said if for me! Just when you think you've heard it all, you haven't. People are sinking to new lows everyday. I'm really starting to believe the end is coming sooner than we think.

Posted by jchurchi56 on September 18, 2007 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Can you say, "tort reform!?"

Posted by mar_9797 on September 18, 2007 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That settles it......if you plan to rape, Nebraska is the place to do it.

Posted by delvin.valka on September 18, 2007 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If everyone in the US is entitled to have legal representation. Who is the lawyer that will represent GOD? Wha if he does show up?

Posted by mychbelle on September 18, 2007 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would think it would be difficult to seat a jury of God's "peers", ya know?

.

Posted by sweetie3302 on September 18, 2007 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The funny thing about this story is just the other day I was thinking about frivolous lawsuits and thought that the only entity that hasn't been sued yet was God...well, now He is....lol...

Posted by lupie_mendiola on September 18, 2007 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sue God!! I think we can make a better deal with you. I am going to file suit for defamation of character.
Only people like you can make the news...and you are asking for attention on a free basis.
Do remember many people have requested God be removed from the courthouse premises.
i live in a State where God rules!!

Thank God I don't live in Nebraska!!!

Go ahead and say "THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT"!!!!
He is the only one that is going to back you up.

Posted by normac on September 18, 2007 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sue GOD, what next?...GOD have mercy on us all.

Posted by dkwill_98 on September 18, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Boy, I bet God is really gonna give him the judgement he is looking for...........

Posted by batman_1026 on September 18, 2007 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hahaha. this is one of the most ridiculously funny things i have ever read. what a moron! i think someone's been watching a little too much "Bruce Almighty".He probably thinks God is gonna let him take over. But what if he is no good...is he then gonna sue God again for not telling him how to do the job right.hahahahaha

Posted by sweetie3302 on September 18, 2007 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think I'm going to sue the Devil for that time that I drank too much and woke up with that ugly, hairy dude that I could have swore looked like Brad Pitt at closing time! LOL!!!!!

Posted by mar_9797 on September 18, 2007 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey sweetie, I know what you mean. The other night me and Carmen Electra had an awesome night. After I fell asleep, GOD took her out and put in Rosie O'Donald..........worse hang over ever...

Posted by cire2004 on September 18, 2007 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope everyone here is kidding about God bringning down His almighty wrath for the lawsuit. The Senator was just trying to make a point, big deal. Do you all think God is so merciless that He would do such things? Come on people, smarten up a bit.

Posted by sweetie3302 on September 18, 2007 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cire2004:

Get a sense of humor, we know the senator is trying to make a point...There are soooo many frivolous lawsuits out there, you just got to laugh....

Posted by sidlisa02 on September 18, 2007 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sweetie3302 and mar_9797, thanks so much for the laughs !! Maybe the lady that had the twins (when she only wanted one baby )can turn around and sue God for "blessing" her with two little bundles of joy instead of one..after all, children are a blessing from Him, so shouldn't she be blaming him along with the doctors that made this all possible ????? Give me a freaking break, this just proves that this world is so full of idiotic people looking for a quick way to add more digits to their checkbook balance !!

Posted by cire2004 on September 18, 2007 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a great sense of humor, but when I see people say we are going to burn because of this it kills me. Its hard to laugh at such ignorance, and I am not even religious. It just seemed that some of the posts were taking this whole thing to seriously. Your post was funny though : )

Posted by sweetie3302 on September 18, 2007 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, I didn't mean to snap...at least, not too hard...just trying to lighten things up after some of the "religious" posts...lol

Posted by cire2004 on September 18, 2007 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thats it sweetie..I'm suing you for making me laugh. I hope you have moses as your attorney cause I'm bringing my dream team, the 12 Apostles.

Posted by sweetie3302 on September 18, 2007 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah! Now you've done it! We are surely on our way to hell now! I'm going to have to add this in suit against the devil for "making me do it..."

Posted by cire2004 on September 18, 2007 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lol..you better stop your gonna make baby Jesus cry.

Posted by sweetie3302 on September 18, 2007 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The same one Ricky Bobby thanks before dinner? I sure hope not...The other posters are going to sue us for having too much fun with this inspiring story about making a point against law suit abuse by suing God....

Posted by rrempp on September 18, 2007 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sweetie3302 / mar_9797/cire2004

Thanks for the laughs! Its posts like yours that make my day.
It is so much more fun to read the Caller Times in this forum.
I turn my computer off at the end of the day with a big ole' smile! =)

Posted by sweetie3302 on September 18, 2007 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you! Got most of my stuff from the Family Guy, which actually, I would have bet money that I would see someone suing God there before it happened in the real world!
Dang! Now I'm sure the creators are going to sue me for swiping their sense of humor!

I could understand if she was brain dead and on a respirator. What was the COD?......"Starvation" for Terri Schindler..not on the List?

2007-08-13T02:20:00.000-07:00

Google Yourself Corpus Christi: setexasrec: If you disagree, I got 4 brand spankin new ones to put on your family vehicle; oh yeah & one spare just in

2007-08-05T01:27:00.000-07:00

Google Yourself Corpus Christi: setexasrec: If you disagree, I got 4 brand spankin new ones to put on your family vehicle; oh yeah & one spare just in case you survive the blow out.

So WATT does this mean for Texas?

Who is the author?

After reading this article i got to believe the author is not familiar with the adversarial process or the article is pure prevarication. Who wants to buy a vehicle without laminated windows. I don't, but in Mikal's argument it was just mental re-enforcement for the jury and he is representing his client with zeal. .In layman terms Laminated glass, which is two layers of plate glass with plastic laminate in between, is used on automotive windshields. It has been used for decades to keep objects from easily getting through the windshield and entering the vehicle. The negative is it prevent easy exit should one need to break the glass in order to escape in a submerged situation or something of that nature.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

KENEDENO: "I say hot damn we got ourselves a fighter, and advocate. Now there's an attribute money cant buy, a game mentality moving unencumbered through legal birds nests and over hurdles to accomplish results.

"Like a Pitbull in the Middle of a Bunch of Poodles upon Capitol Hill.

The bottom line is the tire is faulty but it is cheaper to pay the injured and dead than it is to replace all of the tires on all of the brand new vehicles. Well, at least that was the word according bean counters (Actuarial Analysts). I bet they dont work there anymore, eh? When an automaker knows there is a faulty product that will "cause a death or two" and they acquiesce, or continue to produce the vehicle with the defective product and they dont recall the defective product for WATT ever reason they need to pay.

Watt if you or your family member purchased a brand new Explorer or Expedition or Excursion. You plan a vacation and plot out your trip planning to stop for the young ones at the rest areas and to stretch the legs and maybe even swap drivers. Everybody has their pillow and their reading material or headphones and music, for the kids you had the video screen and dvd systenm installed and you even went the extra mile and installed a Playstation III for the kids and the kids at heart.

So we are cruising and everyone is commenting on the comfort, the neat features, the enhanced entertainment, and the overall "On The Road" experience the new vehicle provides.

The last thing on their mind is breaking down, needing to check the fluids every few miles, or rolling down the window because the air conditioning dont work. The passengers and the driver feel secure and safe; maybe they dont even buckle up.

The next thing we know the vehicle has become impaired and unstable. The resulting tumbling, sliding, shattering of glass, screaming, and bending of metal that happens in less than a minute (but feels like a lifetime) comes to a rest and there is a eerie silence for a moment. Then the lucky ones can moan in their pain and the silent ones Vaya Con DIOS. How long before the Halo FLight? How long before rescue?

And you come to find out you have lost 1 or 2 or 5 of your loved ones because of something that makes no sense at all.

I am not talking about the Blowout people, I am talking about the decision made by the automaker that your loved ones were just another number, a casualty in the name of profits.

Would you want an advocate fighting for your interests like Mikal Watts fights the giant automakers?

If you disagree, I got 4 brand spankin new ones to put on your family vehicle; oh yeah and one spare just in case you survive the blow out.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Mikal Watts' arguments
http://www.setexasrecord.com/arguments/198814-mikal-watts-arguments

8/4/2007 10:58 AM

Three college girls are driving cross-country pulling a U-Haul trailer while simultaneously sharing a bag of marijuana. About 20 hours into the voyage, the driver brakes hard on a hill and loses control, sending the car off the side of the road.

They weren't wearing seat belts.

Was she high? Fatigued? Did she forget that breaking hard on a downslope while pulling a fully-stuffed U-Haul is a big no-no?

Whatever. Represented by Corpus Christi plaintiff's lawyer Mikal Watts in a suburban Houston courtroom, she demanded millions in damages over the accident-- from a tire maker.

No matter that Texas state investigators blamed the wreck on driver error and speeding, concluding the tires remained intact after the crash and worked just fine. Still, Watts argued they were wrong, that it wasn't her fault. He even demanded the judge declare a mistrial when the defense had the nerve to raise the girl's driving-while-pot smoking in court.

Is this the kind of guy-- one who would make such a specious, if self-serving, argument with a straight face-- that we want representing Texas in the U.S. Senate?

Mr. Watts, a 39-year-old mega-millionaire and judge's son who flies private, is traveling the state this summer, raising money and straining to re-define himself as a populist "everyman" in preparation for the Spring 2008 Democrat primary election.

He made his bones making arguments like the aforementioned, suing automakers and other businesses. But suffice to say, he won't be bragging on the campaign trail about the "marijuana mistrial" or his lawsuit blaming Ford for an accident in which the driver was speeding, had been drinking and wasn't wearing a seat belt.

The automaker was at fault because, according to Watts, it didn't laminate its side windows.

Watts will also remain mum about the embarrassing hiccup in that Ford case-- when it was revealed mid-trial that one of his associate lawyers was dating one of the jurors. She had even helped him "recruit" two of the plaintiffs for Watts, evidence showed.

Apparently under no ethical obligation to tell the court about this, Watts remained quiet and steadfast. It paid off-- he won a $31 million verdict.

"Mikal Watts has spent his entire career fighting on behalf of average, working Texans," promised his spokesman in a recent interview.

Don't believe it just because he says so.

The Ring of Hell that is To prove Sexual Harrassment~TSCJ..Scott Brister's words....define "ring of Hell" required to prerequisite proof of evidence..

2007-08-02T01:11:00.000-07:00

Legally trained or legal education.......The Body of Christ Law School

2007-07-29T03:33:00.000-07:00