Fourth Amendment Restoration Act This bill limits surveillance conducted for foreign intelligence purposes. Specifically, the bill repeals provisions authorizing without a court order various types of searches and surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, including electronic surveillance and access to business records. An officer of the U.S. government must obtain a warrant for certain search and surveillance activities against a U.S. citizen, including (1) conducting electronic surveillance, (2) conducting physical searches of property under a U.S. citizen's exclusive control, or (3) targeting a U.S. citizen to acquire foreign intelligence information. The bill provides for criminal penalties for a person who knowingly violates these requirements or otherwise obtains such information under color of law without statutory authorization. Information about a U.S. citizen acquired under Executive Order 12333 (relating to intelligence gathering) or during surveillance of a non-U.S. citizen shall not be used against the U.S. citizen in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding or investigation.
If enacted, the bill would fundamentally alter the current legal framework concerning governmental surveillance activities targeting U.S. citizens. The requirement that law enforcement must obtain a warrant for electronic surveillance or physical searches means that individuals' privacy would be better safeguarded against arbitrary government actions. This shift reflects a growing concern among lawmakers and citizens regarding the balance between national security and civil liberties, particularly in an era where technology has vastly expanded surveillance capabilities.
House Bill 237, also known as the 'Fourth Amendment Restoration Act', seeks to significantly reform the United States' approach to electronic surveillance, particularly in relation to foreign intelligence operations. The bill aims to repeal the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which has historically allowed surveillance and searches for national security purposes without a court order. By repealing these provisions, the bill mandates that any search or surveillance conducted on a U.S. citizen requires a warrant, therefore enhancing privacy protections and limiting government overreach into personal freedoms.
The bill is likely to spur debate regarding its implications on national security and the effectiveness of intelligence operations. Proponents argue that the legislation is necessary to restore constitutional protections and prevent potential abuses of power by intelligence agencies. However, opponents might contend that such stringent requirements could hinder timely intelligence gathering required to address threats, ultimately compromising national security. This tension between personal privacy and security needs presents a substantial point of contention among lawmakers.