Seth Haskin

My position begins with a simple principle: the government's first responsibility is to protect the rights and liberties of the people, and every power it exercises must remain within the limits established by the Constitution. Public safety is an essential duty of government, but it cannot be pursued by disregarding the very liberties government was established to protect. I strongly support law enforcement and its ability to investigate crimes, apprehend criminals, and employ modern technologies to fulfill those responsibilities. I am not opposed to surveillance technology itself. Rather, I believe its use must be governed by clear constitutional boundaries, specific legal authorization, and meaningful accountability. In some circumstances, I would establish protections stricter than those currently required by law or judicial precedent. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, while the Fifth and Sixth Amendments provide essential protections of due process and the rights of the accused. These protections must remain meaningful regardless of how sophisticated investigative technologies become. Technology does not create government authority, nor does it relieve public officials of their constitutional responsibilities. Every surveillance program must operate under lawful authority, with identifiable officials responsible for its authorization, operation, and oversight. I distinguish between ordinary observation, legitimate investigation, and systematic surveillance. Law enforcement may observe public activity, document what officers witness, and preserve photographs, recordings, and evidence lawfully obtained. However, the ability to observe someone in public should not automatically authorize the government to construct a detailed history of that person's movements, associations, and private life. A single observation or recording is fundamentally different from a coordinated network of cameras, license plate readers, and databases capable of reconstructing someone's activities over months or years. I believe prolonged, individualized tracking and the systematic aggregation of personal information should generally require judicial authorization, even where current law may permit some of these practices without a warrant. The duration, scope, sensitivity, and purpose of surveillance must all be considered when determining the appropriate legal safeguards. I also oppose government agencies purchasing Americans' private information from commercial data brokers as a means of circumventing constitutional protections. If the government would ordinarily require a warrant to obtain someone's private communications, location history, browsing activity, or other protected information, it should not be permitted to purchase that same information simply because a private company possesses it. The government should not be able to purchase its way around the Constitution. The existence of a commercial market for personal information should not diminish the constitutional protections of the individual. Likewise, private businesses should not be compelled to provide protected customer information to law enforcement without appropriate legal authorization, including a judicial warrant where required. I recognize that existing law sometimes permits disclosure through subpoenas, court orders, emergency exceptions, or voluntary cooperation without a warrant. My proposal would establish stronger protections in certain circumstances, rather than suggest that every such disclosure is already unconstitutional. Any exceptions must be narrowly defined, legally justified, and subject to appropriate oversight. I also recognize that individuals may voluntarily authorize companies to disclose certain information, either through direct consent or contractual agreements. However, consent must be knowing, voluntary, specific, and limited to the information and purposes actually authorized. A broadly worded privacy policy or an obscure provision buried in a lengthy contract should not automatically be treated as permission for unrestricted government access to a person's private information. A company's possession of customer data does not grant it unlimited authority to disclose that information to law enforcement. Private companies should remain free to cooperate with legitimate investigations when supported by valid consent or lawful authority, but they should not become an indirect means of exercising powers government does not lawfully possess. Nor should government pressure or informal arrangements become substitutes for established legal procedures. For example, I would permit carefully regulated passive facial recognition technology to locate individuals specifically identified in valid warrants. Such systems could temporarily process images to determine whether an authorized individual is present, but information concerning unrelated individuals should not be retained as independent surveillance records or used to construct databases of their movements. Temporary processing should not become permanent collection. At the same time, incidental collection must be distinguished from unlawful surveillance. Suppose a person under investigation attends a gathering and interacts with numerous people. Law enforcement may lawfully document those interactions and preserve the resulting photographs or recordings as evidence. The presence of other individuals does not invalidate that evidence, nor should officers be prohibited from reviewing lawfully obtained material as part of their investigation. However, association alone is not probable cause. Merely appearing in a photograph, speaking with a suspect, or being present nearby must not automatically justify searching someone's private records or systematically tracking their movements. If specific facts establish reasonable suspicion, officers may pursue lawful investigative questioning or other appropriately limited investigative measures. Any additional search requiring a warrant must be independently justified and authorized. Every individual retains the same constitutional protections, regardless of whom they know or where they happen to be. I also believe the use of automated surveillance raises important questions of accountability and due process. Machines have no independent constitutional authority. They cannot issue warrants, authorize investigations, or assume responsibility for the government's conduct. These responsibilities must remain with identifiable public officials acting under lawful authority. When information obtained through surveillance is used against someone in a criminal proceeding, the accused must have a meaningful opportunity to challenge its legality, authenticity, and reliability. The Sixth Amendment's right to confront witnesses applies to testimonial evidence, while due process, discovery, and evidentiary protections provide additional means of challenging automated records and investigative methods. Government should not be permitted to conceal unlawful practices or evade accountability simply because information was collected by a machine rather than an officer. I would establish clear consequences for unlawful collection. Information obtained through prohibited searches or surveillance should generally be inadmissible in court and subject to mandatory deletion through enforceable procedures. However, records necessary to establish government misconduct, preserve evidence favorable to the accused, or permit judicial review must be protected against destruction. Lawfully collected evidence should likewise remain available for legitimate investigative and judicial purposes. Continued surveillance or expanded searches must receive whatever additional legal authorization is required. An existing warrant should not become unlimited permission to investigate everyone who comes into contact with its subject. I support transparent rules governing the deployment of surveillance technologies, including legislative approval, public hearings, independent audits, limits on data retention and sharing, and meaningful consequences for misuse. These safeguards should be straightforward enough for citizens to understand and sufficiently precise for officers to follow. I do not believe supporting law enforcement and defending constitutional liberty are contradictory positions. We can provide officers with effective investigative tools while insisting that those tools remain subject to the law. Indeed, clear rules protect citizens against arbitrary government power while providing law enforcement with a defined framework for performing its duties. My approach may impose greater restrictions than current law in certain circumstances, but I believe a free people have every right to demand stronger protections through their elected representatives. Ultimately, the government has the authority to investigate crimes, not an unlimited license to investigate the people. Technological advancement must never become a means of exercising powers that government does not lawfully possess. The Constitution must remain the governing authority, regardless of how capable the government's tools become.