Roving wiretap
Encyclopedia
A roving wiretap is a wiretap specific to the United States
that follows the surveillance target. For instance, if a target attempts to defeat surveillance by throwing away a phone and acquiring a new one, by moving, or by any other methods, another surveillance order would usually need to be applied for. However, a "roving" wiretap follows the target, and defeats the target's attempts at breaking the surveillance by changing location or their communications technology. It is allowed under amendments made to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(the "Wiretap Statute") in 1988 by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
, and was later expanded by section 604 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
to search business records and allow for roving wiretaps.
. However in the case of United States v. Petti, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the particularity requirement can be substituted by the particular person since only the specific media used by the specific target of the investigation can be tapped. However, innocent civilians may also be inadvertent targets of surveillance.
Due to unauthorized information potentially being gathered in the surveillance, minimization procedures (turning off recordings, deleting non targeted information) need to be spelled out in the application for a roving wiretap and they must be approved by the judge. Similar minimization procedures exist in non roving wiretaps that target specific communication devices that are used by more people than just the target of surveillance.
Unlike the PATRIOT Act, which is permanent law, the roving wiretap provision must be periodically renewed due to concerns that it could be used to violate privacy rights.
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
that follows the surveillance target. For instance, if a target attempts to defeat surveillance by throwing away a phone and acquiring a new one, by moving, or by any other methods, another surveillance order would usually need to be applied for. However, a "roving" wiretap follows the target, and defeats the target's attempts at breaking the surveillance by changing location or their communications technology. It is allowed under amendments made to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was legislation passed by the Congress of the United States that established the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration . Title III of the Act set rules for obtaining wiretap orders in the United States. It has been started shortly after...
(the "Wiretap Statute") in 1988 by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
Electronic Communications Privacy Act
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is a United States law.- Overview :The “electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or...
, and was later expanded by section 604 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
History
On May 26, 2011, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the provisions of the 2001 USA PATRIOT ActUSA PATRIOT Act
The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001...
to search business records and allow for roving wiretaps.
Controversy
Roving wiretaps are controversial because they can be done under a court order that does not name a specific telephone line or e-mail account but allows the government to tap any phone line, cell phone, or Internet account that a suspect uses. This is problematic because it conflicts with the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionFourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
. However in the case of United States v. Petti, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the particularity requirement can be substituted by the particular person since only the specific media used by the specific target of the investigation can be tapped. However, innocent civilians may also be inadvertent targets of surveillance.
Due to unauthorized information potentially being gathered in the surveillance, minimization procedures (turning off recordings, deleting non targeted information) need to be spelled out in the application for a roving wiretap and they must be approved by the judge. Similar minimization procedures exist in non roving wiretaps that target specific communication devices that are used by more people than just the target of surveillance.
Unlike the PATRIOT Act, which is permanent law, the roving wiretap provision must be periodically renewed due to concerns that it could be used to violate privacy rights.