Reining in Warrantless Searches
It is time for Congress to provide reasonable limits to warrantless FBI searches
NSLs
can be a valuable investigative tool in national security cases. But because
they allow the FBI to carry out searches without any independent review, they
are highly susceptible to abuse. Congress exacerbated the problem in 2001 when
it enacted the USA PATRIOT Act.
Before
9/11, the FBI was permitted to issue NSLs only when it could show that the
records pertain to a terrorist or spy. Congress relaxed that requirement under
section 505 of the PATRIOT Act, which authorized the agency to obtain records
pertaining to any person if the
records are deemed “relevant to” a national security investigation.
The
PATRIOT Act also expanded the number of individuals within the FBI who are
authorized to issue NSLs and the kinds of information NSLs can be used to
obtain. It is no surprise that these expansive new authorities have
dramatically increased the FBI’s use of NSLs.
The
Inspector General’s report reveals that the FBI issued 8,500 NSL requests to
telephone carriers, Internet providers, and financial institutions in 2000. By
2005, that number had grown to 47,000, for a total of 143,074 NSL requests
issued over the three-year period covered in the report.
Unfortunately,
the increased use of NSLs has brought with it a troubling pattern of error and
abuse. In its review of 293 NSLs issued in 2003-2005, the report found numerous
“possible violations” of the Justice Department’s own investigative rules for
the use of NSLs, including a number of “serious misuses” of NSL authority.
These include instances in which officials issued NSLs without proper authority
or documentation; sought and obtained records, such as full credit reports,
which cannot lawfully be obtained without a court order; circumvented NSL
requirements by citing “exigent circumstances” where none existed; and
erroneously collected and retained information on the wrong person.
Of
particular concern were numerous possible violations that the Inspector General
discovered which had not been identified or reported by the FBI to the
Intelligence Oversight Board as required by agency procedures. In its
examination of a representative sample of 77 files in four FBI field offices,
the Inspector General found that 22 percent of the files contained at least one
possible unreported violation.
This
led the IG to comment that “our findings suggest that a significant number of
NSL-related possible Intelligence Oversight Board violations throughout the FBI
have not been identified or reported by FBI personnel.”
While
the IG found no evidence of “deliberate attempts to circumvent statutory
limitations,” these violations underscore the problems that occur when agency
officials are permitted to conduct searches without even minimal checks and
balances.
The
IG recommended a series of internal steps the FBI should take to prevent
similar lapses in the future and ensure that all NSLs comply with the law.
Those recommendations are a good place to start. But this episode demonstrates
yet again that the Executive Branch cannot be relied upon to police itself.
Congress
should act quickly to investigate these abuses and determine whether the
internal checks recommended by the IG are sufficient to prevent their
recurrence. More fundamentally, Congress should consider carefully whether the
PATRIOT Act invited these abuses by going too far in expanding the reach of
NSLs.
Congress
should consider amending section 505 in at least two respects. First, Congress
should strictly limit the use of NSLs to transactional records, such as
telephone billing records, subscriber information, travel records, and the
names of bank account and credit card holders, while requiring a court order
before the government can obtain records of banking activities or credit card
transactions.
Second,
Congress should reinstate the pre-PATRIOT Act requirement that the government
make a determination that the records it is seeking pertain to a suspected
terrorist or spy.
These
amendments, together with the administrative safeguards recommended by the
Inspector General, would go a long way toward ensuring that the government has
the authority it needs to conduct effective national security investigations
while safeguarding the privacy of innocent Americans.
Mark Agrast is a Senior Fellow at the
Center for American Progress. To speak with him, please contact:
For
TV, Sean Gibbons, Director of Media Strategy
202.682.1611
or sgibbons@americanprogress.org
For
radio, Theo LeCompte, Media Strategy Manager
202.741.6268
or tlecompte@americanprogress.org
For
print, Trevor Kincaid, Deputy Press Secretary
202.741.6273
or tkincaid@americanprogress.org
For
web, Erin Lindsay, Online Marketing Manager
202.741.6397
or elindsay@americanprogress.org
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
For print, John Neurohr, Deputy Press Secretary
202.481.8182 or jneurohr@americanprogress.org
For radio, Andrea Purse, Deputy Director of Media Strategy
202.446.8429 or apurse@americanprogress.org
For TV, Sean Gibbons, Director of Media Strategy
202.682.1611 or sgibbons@americanprogress.org
For web, Erin Lindsay, Online Marketing Manager
202.741.6397 or elindsay@americanprogress.org