Does The Issue Of Security Letters Violate The Fourth Amendment

According to an article by Associated Press writer Hope Yen the constitutionality of the below issue is under question before federal courts.

The security letters, which were first used in the 1970s, allow access to people's phone and e-mail records, as well as financial data and the Internet sites they surf. The 2001 Patriot Act removed the requirement that the records sought be those of someone under suspicion.

As a result, FBI agents can review the digital records of a citizen as long as the bureau can certify that the person's records are "relevant" to a terrorist investigation.

The Forth Amendment ,which I cite below. is the part of the Constitution the issue of security letters may conflict with.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I do not believe that the Fourth Amendment was placed in the Constitution to stop reasonable investigation so from Minnesota v. Olson I got the follow cite which was held by the Court Justices in that April 1990 case.

The State Supreme Court applied essentially the correct standard in holding that there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry: An entry may be justified by hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, the imminent destruction of evidence, the need to prevent a suspect's escape, or the risk of .

The concerns of the government in this case could be the security of the court system itself and its ability to keep information away from potential terrorists or their friends. That would fall under any of the above situation since a leak could lead to any of the above. The solution is to have special judges and support staff for security matters and to vet them to the appropriate security clearance in advance of the request.

As for if Congress has the right to change the requirements of what is a reasonable reason to search. They are the legislative branch of the federal government acting in a federal jurisdiction which gives them the power the define what is and is not reasonable, when the Constitution leaves such a definition is in doubt. The judicial branch is then to determine if the particular request fits those criteria. It is the job of the voters to hold their legislative members in check.

A federal judge has the authority to say that section of the Patriot Act is unenforceable until Congress amends it to include the use of a judge. The federal judge should also state that Congress has the right to decide whether or not that judge and his/her staff need a security check.