Document: 392 U.S. 378 88 S.Ct. 2096 20 L.Ed.2d 1166 Clyde Franklin LEE et al., Petitioners,v.STATE OF FLORIDA. No. 174. Argued May 2, 1968. Decided June 17, Edward R. Kirkland, Orlando, Fla., for petitioners. Wallace E. Allbritton, Tallahassee, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The three petitioners were convicted in a Florida trial court violating state lottery laws. Their convictions affirmed by district appeal,1 and Supreme Court denied further review. We granted certiorari to consider application § 605 Federal Communications Act 1934, 48 Stat. 1103, 47 U.S.C. 605, circumstances this case.2 That statute provides: 2 '(N)o person not being authorized sender shall intercept any communication divulge * existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning such intercepted *.' 3 In summer 1963 petitioner Lee ordered installation private telephone house where he lived near Florida. local company informed him that no lines available, was given on four-party line instead. A week later, at direction Orlando police department, connected neighboring same party line.3 attached an automatic actuator, tape recorder, set earphones. equipment directly wall outlet way could hear record all conversations without necessity lifting receiver their telephone. This arrangement only afforded continuous access Lee's outgoing incoming calls, but also eliminated telltale 'click' would otherwise have warned conversing parties someone else had picked up receiver. Further, insured noises occupied be heard anyone line. For more than used overhear calls from residence, including made other two as well public telephones. 4 At petitioners' trial, several these recordings introduced evidence prosecution over objection defense counsel. affirming convictions, appellate said 'there federal statutes applicable which make wiretapping illegal inadmissible *.'4 5 disagree. There clearly is statute, every State, conduct authorities case. And we hold today, court. I. 6 Section speaks, terms tapping wire, intercepting divulging communication. State concedes 'divulged' within statute. But, it argues, cannot deemed 'intercepted' conversations, because people who use should realize might overheard. 7 case, however, merely ordinary line, need decide whether those circumstances.5 here did much more. They deliberately arranged his knowledge, they altered connection permit surreptitious surveillance recording What done far cry activity Rathbun v. United States, 355 107, 78 161, 134, case heavily relied upon found interception 'a (is) overheard regularly extension with consent one conversation,' ibid., 'extension been installed there just purpose regular connection, previously placed normally used.' Id., 108, 162. viewed situation though conversation simply 'held out handset so another it.' 110—111, 163. present contrast, neither 'the party' nor 'regularly used' 'not (the) purpose' surveillance. police, planned carried out, amounted communications Act.6 II. 8 remaining question obtained admissible court, notwithstanding express prohibition law against divulgence procured. 9 enacted part six years after Olmstead 277 438, 465, 564, 568, 72 L.Ed. 944, 'Congress may course (legislate to) protect secrecy messages making them, when intercepted, Nardone 302 379, 58 275, 82 314, first called indeed served render trial. Government urged construction section exclude agents since improbable Congress intended hamper impede activities government detection punishment crime.' U.S., 383, 277. reversing judgment conviction, Court's answer argument unequivocal: 10 '(T)he plain words forbid anyone, unless sender, message, direct equally clear language 'no person' publish message its substance 'any person.' To recite contents testimony before message. conclusion act forbids seems us unshaken government's arguments. 11 thought less important some offenders go unwhipped justice officers resort methods practices procedures violative inconsistent ethical standards destructive personal liberty. considerations moved adopt evoked guaranty privacy, embodied Fourth Fifth Amendments Constitution.' 382, 276. 12 Fifteen Schwartz Texas, 344 199, 73 232, 97 231, considered whether, despite lawfully received criminal trials. decided shadow Wolf People Colorado, 338 25, 69 1359, 93 1782, shortly held 'in crime Fourteenth Amendment does admission unreasonable search seizure.' 33, 1364. recognized problem 'somewhat different' presented Wolf, 'because introduction itself violation' law. 201, 234. But nonetheless concluded courts required reject 605. if, held, free accept violation Constitution, reasoned divulged thrust opinion: 13 'Although follow Indeed, officer means constitute unlawful seizure under Constitution while evidence, if officer, Weeks 232 34 341, 652.' Ibid. 14 fact official very said, 'simply additional factor formulating rule own courts.' Benanti 96, 6, 19, five returned teaching giving emphatic recognition makes communications. officers.7 'Section 605,' 'contains express, absolute communications.' 102, 159. 15 After decision, therefore, support supra, holding courts, unlike themselves condone violations accepting products evidence. doctrinal underpinning decision was, course, completely removed Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081, overruled squarely 16 view decisions,8 doctrine Texas survive demise supra. overruling imposed judicially devised exclusionary order insure rules calculated invasion rights protected organic explicitly protects divulgence, place. 17 reach today based symmetry alone. It buttressed 'imperative judicial integrity.' Elkins 364 206, 222.9 Under our federal, serve accomplice willful transgression Laws States,' laws Judges (are) bound *.'10 18 Finally, counseled experience. hope expressed '(e)nforcement statutory can achieved penal provisions' Act. 234.11 has proved vain hope. Research failed uncover single reported enforcement enacted.12 conclude, Mapp, nothing short mandatory exclusion will compel respect effectively available way—by removing incentive disregard 217, 80 1444. 19 Reversed. BLACK, dissenting. 21 1937, courts. 231 (1952), trials, saying: '(W)e do believe impose 203, 235. I correct then still think so. holds, now compels effect overrule Texas. changed section. Nor 1081 (1961), undermine intimates dealt, here, violates deserves sanctions contemplated provides sanctions, 501, civil remedies implied matter law, cf. J. Case Co. Borak, 377 426, 84 1555, 423 (1964). creation substantive right mean States are Supremacy Clause give procedural remedy failure afford renders 'an States." Ante, 386. 22 appropriate leave job rewriting Congress. Waiting rewrite too slow day rapid new rules, many inevitably tend conviction criminals difficult. agree slightest justification affirm gambling convictions. 23 HARLAN, whom WHITE joins, 24 ample power proscribe particular conversations. proscribes basing interceptions. involve constitutional rule, supervisory lower 652. 25 More ago, interceptions invalid. Although arguments incorrect, hardly difficulty. obvious prohibits meant prohibit state-court reliance perfectly probative gained thereby.* 26 disserves proper relation between change long-standing interpretation absence convincing adduced originally mistook what intended. importance principle stare decisis varies nature question. highest present: times, each time naturally assumed stable background vary inclinations members frustrate orderly congressional consideration problems. therefore adhere Schwartz. 27 Since contention violated rights, am content dissent determination views would, stage, academic. Fla.App., 191 So.2d 84. 389 1033, 762, 820. Issues petition certiorari. issues. show how why police. So.2d, 85. went say 'wiretapping Florida' reason Constitution. However, amount 'wiretapping' scope prohibition. conclusions previous cases: Perez 201; Williams 109 379; Griffith 111 282; Barber 172 857. party-line user's privacy obviously vulnerable, necessarily unprotected 305. areas country available; higher rates lines. history indicate protection who, virtue geography financial hardship, must intrastate interstate Weiss 308 321, 60 269, 298. until Terms 1437, 1669, repudiated 'silver platter doctrine,' See second 338, 266, 307. '(I)t lawful authorize act. (I)f wires warrant issued pursuant New York law—if illegal—those motion condoned instigated illegality. (T)he partakes breach, inadvertent, Such breach find sanction orders charged land enforcing law!' re Telephone Communications, Misc.2d 121, 126, 170 N.Y.S.2d 84, 89 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.). Application Interception 543, 198 572 (N.Y.Ct.Gen.Sess.). Compare Judge Waterman's concurring Pugach Dollinger, F.2d 739 (denying injunction 605), aff'd per curiam, 365 458, 650, 678: 'It presumptuous assume judge acquiesce commission presence courtroom witness testifying oath.' F.2d, 745. supreme Law Land; thereby, Thing Contrary notwithstanding.' Art. VI, U.S.Const. Colorado 30—31, 1363. Klein, D.C., 193 F.Supp. 630, defendant attempted unsuccessfully initiate Simons O'Connor, 187 702 damages action 605). seem prosecutions individuals Gruber, 123 307; Gris, 247 860; 1669. established resulting improper. not, result force imposing power.

Category: 0