Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

Arizona first US state to attempt legal resistance to NSA surveillance

Published time: February 05, 2014 09:55
Civil liberties activists hold a rally against surveillance of US citizens (AFP / Nicholas Kamm)

Civil liberties activists hold a rally against surveillance of US citizens (AFP / Nicholas Kamm)

Arizona’s state senate panel approved a bill withdrawing state support for intelligence agencies’ collection of metadata and banning the use of warrantless data in courts. The panel becomes the first legislative body in US to try and thwart NSA spying.

The bill will now have to be approved by majority of the Senate Rules committee before it can move on to the full senate. It prohibits Arizona public employees and departments from helping intelligence agencies collect records of phone-calls and emails, as well as metadata (information on where and when the phone calls were made).

It also proscribes the use of information obtained warrants in state courts.

The bill is entitled the 4th Amendment Protection Act and was introduced by Republican Senator Kelli Ward of Lake Havasu City. It was passed on Monday by the Senate’s Government and Environment committee with a 4-2 vote.

"The 10th Amendment allows states to stand up against unconstitutional federal law," Ward said, as cited by AP. "It's a state issue because many times the NSA is turning that information over to our local and state law enforcement and using that in cases that are basic criminal prosecutions, not anything to do with terrorism."

The bill faced significant opposition from state agencies, however, raising fears the legislation could make Arizona vulnerable in case of a terrorist attack. This concern was voiced by Lyle Mann, director of the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board.

An officer could be given information — important information: a shooting, a terrorist attack, whatever it is you want to talk about - but they cannot confirm that the information came from a warrant-covered source. But if they do nothing with the information, something bad is going to happen,” Mann said as cited by Capitol Media Services.

Ward responded by saying that if there was a real threat there would be no problem for the police in obtaining a warrant to seize whatever information they needed. She added that allowing warrantless gathering of metadata was “a slippery slope” to a loss of individual rights.

We can’t sacrifice our liberty in the name of security. That is one of the main things I’m trying to balance. I don’t think we should be giving up liberties, especially liberties that are guaranteed to us in our Constitution under our Fourth Amendment rights in the interest of security, even if it is terrorism or child pornography,” Ward said.

The bill is based on model legislation drafted by the OffNow Coalition, a civil liberties group, opposing NSA surveillance, which believes the bill’s most important part is prohibiting the use of warrantless information in courts.

While Arizona might not be able to physically stop the NSA and other federal agencies from collecting our data without a warrant, legislation such as this can significantly reduce the practical effect of what they are trying to do with it. Namely, use it within the states for non-terror criminal cases, which is a gross violation of the 4th Amendment,” Shane Trejo of OffNow said as posted at the group’s website.

Critics of the bill say it could be unconstitutional, as it challenges the supremacy of the federal government.

"The federal law is supreme and the state has to follow it," said Paul Bender, a constitutional law professor at Arizona state University's law school, as cited by AP.

Even if passed by the Arizona state senate, the bill could still be blocked by federal courts, as previously happened with the state’s efforts to control immigration reform and push the limits of abortion restrictions.

Comments (17)

 

Gary Snyder 07.02.2014 03:38

AZ is like a subsidiary of TX. Still, I respect them [at least appearing] to take a position.

 

D. Sieved 07.02.2014 01:03

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;

No tice that the laws which shall be the supreme law of the land must be in furtherance of the constitution. The constitution specifically forbids unreasonable searches and siezures. "no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation" This means that someone must swear out a complaint, under penalty of perjury, and a magistrate must find probable cause to believe that a crime has been comitted, before a warrant can issue.
Paul Bender is not a constitutional law professor.
He's a tool.

 

guiltfree german 06.02.2014 17:17

If Arizona was really about protections of citizen rights, the Right To Work Law would never have been signed by Governor Brewer. Without it, you must be able to prove citizenship.

View all comments (17)
Add comment

Authorization required for adding comments

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

OK

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

X

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us

Follow us