The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1962-08-31


to telephone conversation have any
standing in court for Directing to the
I.use of wire-tap evidence. 1t also has
decided that, while wire tapping by
state officials violates Section COS,
evidence so obtained is admissible in
state courts if the state permits it's
use. 1t has declared that it is not a
violation of Section COS for police to
listen in on regular extension tele-
lphone with the consent of one party.
FINALLY, it has held that federal courts
cannot enjoin the divulgence of wire
tap evidence in state courts.
However, in these decisions the
Supreme Court has shown that it
shares the general dislike of Con-
gress for law-enforcement wire tap
ping. 1t has referred to the prac-
tice as a dirty business, as unethi-
cal and as destructive of personal
| liberty.
In the third branch of government,
the attitude toward wire tapping has
been somewhat different. Not only
have several Attorneys General called
on Congress to legalize law-enforce-
ment wire tapping, but the Justice
observation-disclosures the FBI-has
been using taps since 1910. In that
year, the Attorney General took the
position that wire tapping alone did
not violate Section COS. Under our
system of jurisprudence, the Mar
done decisions of 1887 and 1899
were determinative only as to the
admission in court of wire-tap evil
dence or of evidence obtained through
leads acquired by wire taps. The At
torney General in 1910 construed
Section 605 as requiring both an in
Perception and a divulgence. He fur
ther took the position that a divulg-
ence between employees of the JUS
tice Department was not the divulg-
ence contemplated by Section COS.
The President approved wire tapping
by the FBI in national security cases,
and every President since has given
the same approval. The legality of
this activity has never been specifical-
ly tested in the courts and Congress
has tolerated the practice without
taking legislative action.
Because of it's overlapping activ-
tiles, the Justice Department has
maintained policy of not prosecut-
ing state law-enforcement officials
for such activity as long as it had a
police purpose. For the same reason,
it has never enforced Section COS
with the vigor necessary to make it
effective against private wire tap
ping. Only handful of private wire
tappers has ever been tried.
TOO HIGH A PRICE TO PAY
All Americans are concerned that
those who violate the law are appre-
hended and convicted. However, is
not the price we must pay for legal
zed wire tapping too high for the
possible assistance it may be to law
On many occasions
over the years, law-enf orcement Off
,ials have appeared before Congress
n support of wire-tap legislation.
They have spoken of crises in law en-
They have warned of dire
if Congressional action
S not taken. They have testified to
Using crime rates. Yet, in all their
they have never presented
evidence of why wire tap
,ing is necessary. Nor have their
.loomy predictions of calamity, should
Congress refuse to act on their re-
quest, come true.
Before Congress approves wire
tap bill, it should ask: Are the
existing dangers to our society SO
grave that we are willing to sur
render significant part of our lib
erty? Are the dangers SO grave we
are willing to make a major change
in our basic values? We know what
we would lose. We do not know
what we would gain.
One of the most frequent argu-
nents made for the Attorney Gener-
rs wire-tap bill is that the peoples
light of privacy is already being in
AIDED by the current widespread use
f private wire tapping. We are told
hat if the Attorney Generals bill is
private wire tapping will be
topped. BUT is it reasonable to be-
ieve that there will be less private
wire tapping if police wire tapping
- bo, -,1ad +boy +bora &c tndou