Evening star., 1928-01-29

When the United States Supreme
Court hears arguments late In FEBRUARY
on the admissibility OF testimony pro-
cured In prohibition cases by tapping"
telephone wires. the way will be cleared
for a decision that gives promise OF be-
Ing OF the utmost importance. inasmucn
as this method OF obtaining evidence
appears never TO have been previously
subjected TO the sharp probe OF legality
In any jurisdiction.
Additional interest Is being lent to
the case at hand--which. as matter
OF fact. is a consolidation Of three cases
Of identic status-because the Supreme
Court. in granting review. Is revers-
ing itself. having previously refused TO
take up the matter.
AS Is customary, the court offers no
explanation The record simply shows
that orders were entered denying Pc
titions for certiorari In the three cases:
that a petition for rehearing In one
was denied. and that when a petition
for rehearing In another was brought
forward, writs were granted IN all,
Three Years Litigation.
The review comes as the climax OF
three years OF litigation The defend
ants. numbering approximately 100.
we're indicted In the United States Dis
trict Court for the western district OF
Washington, northern division tSeat-
tle). In 1928, and convicted and sen.
fenced TO the Federal Penitentiary at
Mcneil Island year later.
Evidence introduced against the de-
PENDANTS was obtained when one OF
the prohibition agents on the case,
who was a former telephone lineman.
cut into wires leading into the offices
and homes OF the accused. thus making
II possible to listen In ON conversations.
ti0ns
These conversations. OF rcputedly In.
criminatory nature. were admitted
into the record by the trial Judge over
objections OF the defense. who un-
availtngly set up plea that this robbed
them OF rights guaranteed under the
fourth and NTH amendments 10 the
Constitution ~~ the section governing
unlawful search and seizure and that
which prescribes that no person shall
be compelled To be witness against
himself In any criminal case
When the cases went 10 the United
States Circuit Court OF Appeals for
the ninth circuit the defense conten.
ton against the use OF the telephone
conversations was denied and the con-
victions were upheld.
The Appeals court, however, uiViuru,
TO /. ON this decihion, and the sharp
dissent OF Judge Frank A. Rudkin.
| who split with his oonferees on tho
bench. Ii used by the defense as state
ment and argument at once" OF the
appeal To the Supreme Court
Text Of Opinion.
In upholdlng the evidence obtained
by wire tapping" and denying that the
rights OF the defense guaranteed by the
fourth and NTH amendments 70 the
Constitution had been violated. the ma
Iority opinion had this 10 say;
THE protection Of those amend
ments, however, has never been extend
ed 10 the exclusion OF evidence OBJ
tanned by listening % the conversation
OF pefsons at any place or under any
, circumstances, The purpose OF the
| amendments Ii 10 prevent the tnva~
sion ot homes and otf,oea and the ssla.
nre Of inoriminating evidence found
therein Whatever may he said Of the
tapping nf teiephDne wires a. an un-
ethical intrusion upon the privacy af
PERSONS wha are a,tspeatsd of crime, II
n not an act which aaw"s wtt@'a tha