Abstract:
In this report I have discussed the dramatic new exception to the long-standing tradition of grand jury secrecy implemented by the USA PATRIOT Act. It discusses the tradition of grand jury secrecy as codified by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, noting in particular the limited exceptions to such secrecy in place before the USA PATRIOT Act. Furthermore I have discussed the changes to Rule 6(e) adopted in the USA PATRIOT Act. This report concludes that, while the new exception created by the USA PATRIOT Act to the traditional secrecy rules that protect the work of the grand jury is, on balance, justified by the national security concerns that animated the Act, Congress failed to include sufficient safeguards within the Act to guard against the kinds of abuses that drove Congress to separate domestic law enforcement and the intelligence community twenty-five years ago.
Introduction:
In the aftermath of the September 11 attack, the federal government, with support from the American public and US Congress, called for more vigilant measures to root out potential terrorists at home and abroad. 42 To meet the exigencies of the new terrorist threat, Congress passed the US Patriot Act, which was signed into law by President Bush on October 26. The thrust of the new law was to give authorities more options for surveillance with less judicial supervision. It contains several features that should help authorities’ combat terrorism. First, it authorizes the use of so-called “roving wiretaps” to tap any phone lines that a suspected terrorist may be using. Second, it permits surveillance of a suspect’s internet activity and gives the FBI greater latitude in conducting secret searches of suspects’ homes. Third, it allows for greater sharing of information among grand juries, prosecutors and intelligence agencies. Fourth, it expands the powers of the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) to detain immigrants suspected of terrorist activities.........
