On the recordApril 29, 2026
Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a minute here to address the question of the Fourth Amendment. Every Member in this Chamber swears an oath to support the Constitution, and it is important in this debate to remember that all of us care profoundly about the Fourth Amendment. I think it is wrong to suggest that the opposite is the case. I want to draw an analogy for people who may be watching. In the law enforcement context, which is more familiar to most Americans than 702 is, a probable cause Fourth Amendment warrant is required. You have to get from the judge a Fourth Amendment warrant to take, for example, a wiretap on somebody that you suspect of selling fentanyl. Let's just imagine under my example that Bill Smith is suspected of selling fentanyl, and law enforcement goes in front of a judge and gets a warrant to wiretap Bill Smith. Now, Bill Smith, as the police listen, is talking to his brother, Joe Smith, and Joe Smith says, I will help you sell that fentanyl. The police don't need another warrant on Joe Smith. That has been incidentally collected, and no court has ever held that Joe Smith's admission and incidental collection requires the Fourth Amendment for that to be used as evidence in court, which is the argument that the opponents of U.S. person queries are making. I am not here to say that this is uncontroversial.…
Source
govinfo.gov




