Evening star., 1928-06-06
Evidence by Wire Tapping,

4 LtG A1sAit VA AAiC RttPAG "a ~ SSN
/ cure in their persons, homes. houses,
! papers and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures. shall not be vio-
lated. and no warrants shall issue. but
upon probable cause supported by oath
or affirmation, and particularly de-
scrihing the place to be searched. and
tbs persons or things to be seized"
Thus runs the fourth amendment TO
the Constitution. one of that group of
ten called the Bill of Rights. adopted
shortly after the Constitution itself had
been ratified. Yesterday the Supreme
Court OF the United States, by vote
Of five to four. decided that this amend
ment does not prohibit the use in Grim
inal prosecutions of evidence obtained
by tapping telephone wires and listening
/ to conversations.
When the Constitution was adopted
and the Bill OF Rights was added there
was. of course. no such thing as wire
communication. The writer's of the
Constitution had no concept Of the pos
sibility of wire tapping" as a means
OF obtaining evidence against those
suspected of crime. It is a question
beside the point Of the legality of this
procedure whether had they so con-
| ceived such situation they would have
| specifically prohibited It. as they pro-
hibited illegal entry without warrant.
/ The courts OF today must take condi-
| tons as they are and the majority of
| the Supreme Court. in deciding upon
/ this case, has in the language Of the
! Chief Justice. who delivered the de-
cision, considered telephone converse
ton as projection of the voice. II
/ holds that q liberal construction Of the
Constitution cannot justify enlarge
nient of the language employed beyond
the possible practical meaning Of
houses, persons, papers and effects, or
50 to apply the words search and
seizure as To forbid hearing or sight"
| II further holds that the reasonable
view is that one who installs In his
1 q
Meeting wires intends 70 project his
| voice 10 those outside and that the
wires beyond his house and the mes
sages while passing over them are not
within the protection Of the fourth
amendment"
| In this case there is no question OF
the illegslity of the practice. to check
which the telephone. wires were tapped.
BY means Of tapping the wires positive
| proof was obtained OF a criminal enter
prise. The only defense possible was
that this convicting proof was obtained
in an unlawful manner. It was as
though the agents Of the Government
seeking this proof had listened at key
holes or peered through windows, with
out violating the premises in technical
sense.
Prosecuting officers may commander
the records of telegraph messages for
eyidentisi purposes. II is diffScult 70
| conceive the difference between. that
process and the tapping Of wire to
| obtain the evidence directly and I'M
| rnediately
The Bill Of Rights was adopted for
| the protection Of the liberties OF the
| law-abining citizen, not for the protee'
ton Of the isxbreaker. II Is upon that
principle that the Supreme Court bases
It's decision. which. though given by
divided vote, stands now as the la"
Of the land. 70 the effect that those
who violate the statutes cannot De pro-
tected by the technical construction oi
a telephone wire AZ part Of the sacred
premises Of comicile.