SUBMIT AN ARTICLE
BACK TO OVERVIEW
September 5, 2014
The Honorable Fred Upton
Chairman
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
2183 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Member
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman:
On
behalf of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA),
exclusively representing federal agents and officers nationwide, I am
writing to express our strong opposition to Representative Walden's
amendment to H.R. 1575. This amendment will only amount to a legislative
trip-wire being thrown in the path of first responders.
To wit,
paragraph (b) under Section 222A of the amendment calls for "a sworn
written statement from such officer stating the facts that support such
officer's probable cause to believe that disclosure without delay is
required." That provision creates a potentially perilous contradiction
to the exigent importance of the law enforcement officer's request. Once
lives are at risk, you can't be in a part exigent state. Additionally,
the provider does not have a need to know the "facts" and the "probable
cause" threshold is not relevant to the exigent circumstances listed in
subparagraph (1) and (2). Instead, Representative Walden's amendment
could have simply called
for the law enforcement officer to follow up
48 hours after the request with a written statement that lists their
name, contact information, date of request, the telecommunication
device in question, and that the request was made pursuant to H.R. 1575.
Telecommunications providers have no expertise in assessing a
law enforcement officer's determination that an exigent circumstance
exists. That's why all law enforcement components have internal
affairs, offices of professional responsibility, inspector generals, and
other components to review actions taken by law enforcement officers
when warranted. Additionally, the "facts" surrounding the request may be
sensitive and should not be in the uncleared hands of a
telecommunication provider.
Regarding paragraph (d) that requires the officer to request a court order within 48
hours
after their request, to corroborate their probable cause conclusion,
that's nonsense and unwarranted for the same reasons stated above. Every
law enforcement component has a chain of command that is responsible
for, and review, officers' and agent's actions. That's their
responsibility, and they do it well.
I respectfully request that you oppose this flawed amendment that will only serve to
cripple
law enforcement's emergency response capabilities. This amendment
doesn't protect the American public; instead, it serves to obstruct law
enforcement's ability to respond to emergency circumstances that are
triggered by the spontaneous violence of suspected terrorists, child
predators, fugitives and other dangerous criminals. We are optimistic
that you will decide to move forward with H.R. 1575, sans the misguided
amendment.
Respectfully,
Jon Adler
National President