Sara Jacobs: “I thank Ranking Member Nadler for his leadership on this issue. Under almost any other circumstance, law enforcement and…”

“I thank Ranking Member Nadler for his leadership on this issue. Under almost any other circumstance, law enforcement and intelligence agencies need a warrant to access our personal information. Even in the cases of utmost national security like when Americans are suspected of terrorism, espionage, or cybercrimes, our government gets a warrant. This process isn't too burdensome, and it doesn't prevent law enforcement from investigating crimes or bringing people to justice. But there are a few loopholes in this process when it comes to section 702 queries and this data broker loophole, which allows our government to circumvent our Fourth Amendment rights to access our personal information without a warrant, a court order, or even a subpoena. This is only legal because they are buying the information. But our rights shouldn't have a price, and cash shouldn't hold the same legitimacy as a warrant. Law enforcement claims--they say this, this is their claim--this loophole, this data that they buy from data brokers is most useful before probable cause can be demonstrated. That is the whole point of the Fourth Amendment, of our right to prevent unreasonable seizures and searches. If you can't establish probable cause, you shouldn't be able to access or buy this information unless a court says otherwise. That is why we need this bipartisan Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, which I am proud to co-lead. Our bill doesn't inhibit law enforcement's investigations.…”