Document: 365 U.S. 505 81 S.Ct. 679 5 L.Ed.2d 734 Julius SILVERMAN et al., Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES. No. 66. Argued Dec. 5, 1960. Decided March 6, 1961. Mr. Edward Bennett Williams, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. John F. Davis, respondent. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioners were tried and found guilty in District Court Columbia upon three counts an indictment charging gambling offenses under Code. At trial police officers permitted to describe incriminating conversations engaged by at their alleged establishment, which had overheard means electronic listening device. convictions affirmed Appeals, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 144, 275 F.2d 173, we granted certiorari consider contention that officers' testimony as what they heard through instrument should not have been admitted into evidence. 363 801, 80 1237, 4 1145. 2 record shows spring 1958 reason suspect premises 408 21st Street, N.W., being used headquarters a operation. They gained permission from owner vacant adjoining row house use it observation post. From this vantage point period least consecutive days April 1958, employed so-called 'spike mike' listen was going on within four walls next door. 3 question microphone with spike about foot long attached to, together amplifier, power pack, earphones. inserted baseboard second-floor room crevice extending several inches party wall, until hit something solid 'that acted very good sounding board.' clearly indicates made contact heating duct serving occupied thus converting entire system conductor sound. Conversations taking place both floors audible earphones, regarding these conversations, over timely objection, played substantial part petitioners' convictions.1 Affirming convictions, Appeals held court erred admitting testimony. view mike violated neither Communications Act 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605, U.S.C.A. cf. Nardone v. United States, 302 379, 58 275, 82 L.Ed. 314, nor rights Fourth Amendment, Weeks 232 383, 34 341, 652. In reaching conclusions relied primarily our decisions Goldman 316 129, 62 993, 86 1322, On Lee 343 747, 72 967, 96 1270. Judge Washington dissented, believing that, even if Amendment abridged, conduct transgressed standards due process guaranteed Fifth Amendment. Cf. Irvine People State California, 347 128, 74 381, 98 561. 6 As inapplicability 605 agree Appeals. That section provides '* * no person authorized sender shall intercept any communication divulge or publish existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, meaning such intercepted *.' While is true much consisted share telephone cannot say statute. 7 Similar contentions rejected here twice before. 131, 382, 561 said: 'Here apparatus way connected facilities, there interference communications system, interception message. All eavesdropper, hidden hall, bedroom, closet, might heard. We do suppose illegal testify another merely because he saying telephone.' 134, 995, said 'The words (the petitioner) talked receiver more wire communication, Act, than would overhearing conversation one sitting same room.' 8 presenting claim, counsel has painted broad brush. are asked reconsider supra, supra. told re-examination rationale those cases, Olmstead 277 438, 48 564, 944, stemmed, now essential light recent projected developments science electronics. favoured description 'a device known parabolic can pick up hundred yards away.' 'still experimental technique whereby flooded certain type sonic wave,' which, when perfected, 'will make possible overhear everything without ever entering near it.' informed 'which open office window opposite side busy street.'2 9 facts present case, however, require us large questions argued. need contemplate implications other frightening paraphernalia vaunted marvels age may visit human society. Nor circumstances necessary Court's previous area. For fair reading case eavesdropping accomplished unauthorized physical penetration pointed out contradiction Appeals: 'Every inference, little direct evidence was, fact duct, admittedly hoped would. Once touched became effect giant microphone, running appellants.' page 150, 179. 10 Eavesdropping intrusion beyond pale closely divided did amount invasion rights. placing detectaphone against wall order door violate federal agent, who acquainted petitioner, entered petitioner's laundry him conversation. agent concealed his person. Another stationed outside radio receiving set, tuned conversation, subsequent related These constitute violation 11 But took pains explicitly encroachment constitutionally protected prior entry purpose installing different apparatus, turned be ineffective. emphasized earlier trespass relevant assistance later office. pages 134—135, 995—996. And Lee, said, committed.' went business 'with consent, implied invitation, petitioner.' 751—752, 971. 12 absence also vital factor decision 944. holding wiretapping noted '(t)he insertions property defendants. basement building. taps lines streets houses.' 457, 565. 'There houses offices defendants.' 464, 568. Relying circumstances, reasoned intervening wires defendant's) highways along stretched.' 465, 13 Here, contrast, only usurping office—a integral petitioners, usurpation effected knowledge consent. pause whether technical local law relating walls.3 Inherent inevitably measurable terms ancient niceties tort real law. See Jones 362 257, 266, 725, 733, 697; 752, 971; Hester 265 57, 44 445, 68 898; States Jeffers, 342 48, 51, 93, 95, 59; McDonald 335 451, 454, 69 191, 192, 93 153. 14 personal secures, history. core stands right man retreat own home free unreasonable governmental intrusion. Entick Carrington, 19 Howell's Trials 1029, 1066; Boyd 116 616, 626—630, 524, 530—532, 29 746.4 This never officer warrant consent physically entrench man's home, secretly observe listen, relate criminal seen 15 A distinction between utilized seemed too fine draw. 'unwilling believe respective measured fractions inches.' does turn technicality matter It based reality actual What ago bears repeating now: 'It obnoxious thing its mildest repulsive form; but illegitimate unconstitutional practices get first footing way, namely, silent approaches slight deviations legal modes procedure.' 635, 535, 746. find occasion re-examine here, decline go it, fraction inch. 16 Reversed. 17 DOUGLAS, concurring. 18 My trouble stare decisis field leads matching cases irrelevant facts. An permissible privacy according while penetrates not. Yet great other. concept 'an premises,' rests seems me beside point. Was wrong done intimacies tapped, recorded, revealed? depth device—even degree remoteness inside house—is measure injury. There each search made, all, issued magistrate. I stated my views 1270, adhere them. Our concern trivialities trespass, indicates. command limited nice distinctions turning kind equipment employed. Rather sole invaded. Since invaded since obtained required Rule 41 Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, U.S.C.A., judgment conviction must set aside. CLARK WHITTAKER, 20 determination majority constituted sufficient remove coverage decisions, feel obliged join opinion. Alleging basis discovered sought unsuccessfully suppress execution warrant. Government's position ample grounds support warrant, mike. deal admissibility device, leaving warrant's validity abide event new trial. Hearings before Subcommittee Constitutional Rights Committee Judiciary, Senate, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., Wiretapping, Eavesdropping, Bill Rights; House Representatives, 84th 1st Wiretapping; Dash, Schwartz Knowlton, Eavesdroppers (Rutgers University Press, 1959), pp. 346—358. Fowler Koehler, 43 App.D.C. 349. William Pitt's eloquent often quoted. late Jerome Frank contemporary language: 'A still control small environment, house; thence outsiders, secure disobeying Constitution. sizable hunk liberty—worth protecting encroachment. sane, decent, civilized society provide some oasis, shelter public scrutiny, insulated enclosure, enclave, inviolate castle.' Cir., 193 306, 315—316 (dissenting opinion).

Category: 0