The FBI recently asked Congress for sweeping new powers to seize business or private records without first securing approval from a judge. The purpose of seizing such records, whose information ranges from medical to book purchases, is to investigate terrorism.

An FBI general counsel told the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee that the agency needed the power to issue what are known as administrative subpoenas to quickly get information about terrorist plots and the activities of foreign agents.

However, civil liberties groups have complained that such subpoenas, which cover medical, tax, gun-purchase, book purchase, travel and other records, could be kept secret and would give the FBI too much power as well as causing possible infringement on privacy and free speech.

"This type of subpoena authority would allow investigators to obtain relevant information quickly in terrorism investigations, where time is often of the essence," the general counsel testified.

The subject of administrative subpoenas dominated the hearing, which was called to discuss renewing clauses of the USA Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of this year.

The USA PATRIOT act was passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. However administrative subpoena power was not in the original law. The proposed new powers, which have long been sought by the FBI, have been added by Republican lawmakers, acting on the wishes of the Bush administration, to the new draft of the USA PATRIOT Act.

The chairman of the committee, Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, noted that other government agencies already had subpoena power to investigate matters such as child pornography, drug investigations and medical malpractice. He said it made little sense to deny those same powers to the FBI to investigate terrorism or keep track of foreign intelligence agents.

But the opponents to using subpoena powers such as this are saying that these other investigations usually culminate in a public trial, whereas terrorism probes would more likely remain secret and suspects could be arrested, deported or handed over to other countries without any public action.

Over the objections of some Democrats, Roberts intends to hold a closed meeting today to move the legislation forward out of his committee. But the provision still faces a long road before it becomes law, since the Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the bill, while the House of Representatives are drawing up its own legislation.

Democrats on the committee have expressed concerns and pressed the FBI counsel to cite examples of cases where the lack of such powers had hampered an investigation.

"I am not aware of any time in which Congress has given directly to the FBI subpoena authority. That doesn't make it right or wrong. It just needs to be thought about," said West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller.

The FBI counsel said she could not cite a case where a bomb had exploded because the FBI lacked this power, but that did not mean one could not explode tomorrow.

She did gave a theoretical example of a case where the FBI suspected that a terrorist was about to do something but did not know exactly where he was. In such a case, it might subpoena EZ-pass records, which would show where and when he had driven through toll booths in the eastern United States.

Under the proposed legislation, those served with subpoenas would have the right to challenge them in court. But civil liberties groups said few were likely to do so, and it would be unlikely that the person under investigation would know that the FBI was seeking his personal records.

For example, if the FBI demanded a person's medical records from his doctor, the doctor could challenge the order if he wished, but the individual could not.

"Ordinary citizens are storing information not in their homes or even on portable devices but on networks, under the control of service providers who can be served with compulsory process and never have to tell the subscribers that their privacy has been invaded," said James Dempsey of the Center for Democracy, one of several groups opposing the provision.

If you would like more information regarding asset protection, trusts, family limited partnerships or the subject of this article please call or email our office.