Opinion ID: 414332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Constitutional Challenge to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1)

Text: 119 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1) provides that a wiretap may be authorized on grounds, inter alia, that a particular offense has been, is being, or is about to be committed, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1)(b)(i) (emphasis added). One of the reasons for passing the Act was the finding of Congress that [o]rganized criminals make extensive use of wire and oral communications in their criminal activities. The interception of such communications to obtain evidence of the commission of crimes or to prevent their commission is an indispensable aid to law enforcement and the administration of justice. Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub.L. No. 90-351, tit. III, Sec. 801, 82 Stat. 211 (emphasis added). 120 Appellant contends that the phrase or is about to be committed is an unconstitutional enlargement of the fourth amendment concept of probable cause. No cases are cited for this novel proposition. Appellant does cite Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 at 175-76, 69 S.Ct. 1302 at 1310-1311, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949), which defines probable cause as such facts as would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed. We refuse to interpret Brinegar as holding or even suggesting that the fourth amendment prohibits a search warrant, although there is probable cause to believe that a crime is about to be committed. Such an interpretation flies in the face of reason and common sense. If a reliable informant told the F.B.I. that the blue prints, tools, and weapons for a planned robbery were located on certain premises, we think it clear that a search warrant would issue. The basic question is whether there is probable cause for issuing the warrant, not whether the criminal conduct is past, present or future. 121 The constitutionality of the Act has survived a number of challenges, 35 but we have found no case in which a constitutional challenge on this particular ground was made. We hold that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1)(b) is not facially unconstitutional. 122