Parts of the United States' anti-terror Patriot Act are unlawful because they allow warrants to be granted without the need for the government to show probable cause, a judge ruled Wednesday.
A written ruling released by federal Judge Ann Aiken in the northwestern state of Oregon held that allowing the government to carry out searches without showing good reason ran contrary to the US constitution.
The judge's opinion followed a lawsuit lodged by a Portland lawyer who was wrongly detained and questioned in connection with the 2004 Madrid train bombings that left 191 people dead.
The attorney, Brandon Mayfield, a convert to Islam, sued the government and later received an apology and two million dollars after officials admitted mistakenly reading a fingerprint sample.
Mayfield, who alleged that he had been targeted because of his faith, retained the right to challenge the Patriot Act as part of the settlement.
In a subsequent lawsuit, Mayfield said covert raids of his home and office were illegal because they ignored constitutional safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure.
Aiken said in her ruling that if she granted the government request to dismiss Mayfield's case, she would effectively be amending "the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."
She said the Patriot Act "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
The Patriot Act was passed just five weeks after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. While the administration of President George W. Bush has described it a vital weapon in it's "war on terror", civil liberties groups say it infringes upon privacy and other rights.
