Buzz Off ActThis bill prohibits federal law enforcement from using unmanned aerial vehicles to intentionally conduct surveillance of a specifically targeted U.S. citizen or the property of such an individual, with certain exceptions.Specifically, this prohibition shall not apply if (1) the federal law enforcement agency in question first obtains a search warrant, (2) the Department of Homeland Security certifies that such surveillance is necessary to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specified person or organization, or (3) the citizen gives written consent for a photograph or recording that will be made available to the public.
Impact
The bill's implications for state and federal laws are significant. Should the Buzz Off Act be enacted, it would set a precedent limiting the capabilities of law enforcement agencies in their use of UAV technology. This regulation may not only impact surveillance operations at the federal level but could also influence local policing strategies that rely on similar technologies. As a result, the bill could prompt a reevaluation of existing policies regarding technology use in law enforcement and citizen privacy protections.
Summary
House Bill 96, titled the 'Buzz Off Act', aims to prohibit federal law enforcement agencies from using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, to conduct surveillance on United States citizens. The bill is rooted in concerns over privacy and civil liberties, asserting that the use of drones for surveillance purposes infringes on the rights of individuals. The legislation seeks to create a clear boundary regarding the use of technology for monitoring citizens, laying out conditions under which such practices could be considered legal.
Contention
Notably, the legislation includes exceptions that would allow UAV use if authorized by the President or if a federal agency obtains a search warrant from a judge under specific conditions, primarily related to national security or terrorist threats. This creates a potential point of contention as critics argue that such exceptions could undermine the intended protections against unwarranted surveillance while supporters believe they are necessary for maintaining security against threats. The debates surrounding these provisions highlight the ongoing tension between public safety and civil liberties in the legal framework.
Fourth Amendment Restoration ActThis bill repeals the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (which authorizes various types of searches and surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes) and limits surveillance of U.S. citizens.The bill requires that an officer of the U.S. government obtain a warrant for certain search and surveillance activities against a U.S. citizen, including (1) conducting electronic surveillance, (2) conducting physical searches of property under a U.S. citizen's exclusive control, or (3) targeting a U.S. citizen to acquire foreign intelligence information.The bill provides for criminal penalties for a person who intentionally (1) violates these requirements without statutory authorization, or (2) discloses or uses information that the person knows (or has a reason to know) was obtained under color of law by methods that violate these requirements. Information about a U.S. citizen acquired under Executive Order 12333 (relating to intelligence gathering) or during surveillance of a non-U.S. citizen shall not be used against the U.S. citizen in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding or investigation.
No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities ActThis bill prohibits federal funds from being used as congressionally directed spending (i.e., an earmark) for jurisdictions that withhold information about citizenship or immigration status or do not cooperate with immigration detainers.Specifically, such funds are denied to any jurisdiction that has a law, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts any government entity frommaintaining, sending, or receiving information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual;exchanging information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status with a federal, state, or local government entity;complying with a valid immigration detainer from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); ornotifying DHS about an individual's release from custody.The funding restriction does not apply to a law, policy, or practice that only applies to an individual who comes forward as a victim of or a witness to a criminal offense.This prohibition begins in FY2026.
Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies; persons requesting booking photographs to provide the first and last names of the individuals in the photographs; require
Prohibits manufacturers or operators of networked camera devices to enable coordinated surveillance features on such devices as a default feature without first obtaining affirmative opt-in consent from the owner; requires disclosure of data rights for owners of such devices; prohibits coordinated surveillance features to be disclosed to law enforcement without a warrant; makes related provisions.