Orrin Hatch: “initially I opposed the President's version of this amendment. It is a fundamental tenet that the right of the people to…”

“initially I opposed the President's version of this amendment. It is a fundamental tenet that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures limit the permissibility in Government interception of electronic communications. In other words, the Government cannot listen to our private telephone conversations whenever it feels like it. Indeed, because wiretaps are so intrusive in conducting in secret and under circumstances in which the subject generally has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the courts and Congress have required that Federal law enforcement officers meet a heightened burden of necessity before using a wiretap. At the same time, we have to recognize that no one has a right to engage in illegal activity. Criminals consistently adapt the latest technology to further the aim of completing their illegal acts without detection. As the criminal use of technology has evolved so, too, must we, enhancing the capabilities of law enforcement who, after all, must protect our citizens from these types of crimes. The balance between a person's right to be free from unreasonable searches and his or her expectation to live free from crime is a delicate one. We have to consider seriously any proposal with the potential to upset the balance. Now, I believe that the President's language could very well have done that.”