Orrin Hatch: “Under current law, law enforcement has so-called roving or multi-point surveillance authority for criminal…”

“Under current law, law enforcement has so-called roving or multi-point surveillance authority for criminal investigations under title III, but FISA does not have comparable provisions for agents investigating foreign intelligence. Roving interceptions are tied to a named person rather than to any particular communications facility or place. Today's bill adds this vital authority to FISA. This authority is critical for tracking suspected spies and terrorists who are experts in counter-surveillance methods such as frequently changing locations and communications devices such as phones and computer accounts. It simply makes no sense that our wire-tapping statute recognizes this problem, and provides roving wiretap authority for surveillance of common criminals, but makes no provision for roving authority to monitor terrorists under the FISA statute. The proposed amendment would not succeed in its stated goal of harmonizing the standard between title III wiretaps and FISA wiretaps. The proposed amendment would put a requirement on the interception of wire or electronic communications under a FISA warrant that does not exist in the title III context--a requirement that the law enforcement officer implementing the wiretapping order personally ascertain that the target of the order is using a telephone or computer, before the monitoring could begin. This requirement is operationally unworkable.”