At the same time, it enables the federal authorities to identify and intercept communications made with malicious intentions (Henderson, 2001).
The fourth amendment does not cloak information such as an individual’s bank and telephone records to and from an individual’s account. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 limits some of the authorities given by the patriotism act, while at the same time living a very narrow margin for electronic surveillance (Kraft & Furlong, 2013).
The act certainly intended for a close, and symbiotic relation amongst foreign intelligence investigations, criminal investigators, much greater emphasis was in international terrorism cases. Due to this, it amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Initially to apply for FISA, an order to do some surveillance under FISA required one to certify that the reason for the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information. This lead to the defendants frequently questioning whether the FISA order was applied to them to avoid the predicate crime threshold. This led to the notion that there might be other reasons for the application of the FISA order. Criminal prosecution was in the spotlight, and it was required to end the surveillance or secure an order under Title III (Henderson, 2001).
Even though, both foreign intelligence and criminal investigations are carried out in the US. A criminal investigation is after information about illegal activities whereas foreign intelligence is not restricted to hostile, criminal or governmental activities since what is important is it being foreign (Henderson, 2001). Though a complete ban on FISA Act is not present, the Supreme Court cleared the air by saying presidential authority to attain national security was not enough to excuse warrantless tapping of a suspect with no identifiable foreign connections