Document: 344 U.S. 199 73 S.Ct. 232 97 L.Ed. 231 SCHWARTZv.STATE OF TEXAS. No. 41. Argued Nov. 12, 1952. Decided Dec. 15, Mr. Maury Hughes, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner. Messrs. Henry Wade, Calvin B. Garwood, Jr., Houston, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, respondent. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion Court. 1 The petitioner, Schwartz, a pawnbroker, entered into conspiracy with Jarrett and Bennett whereby latter two were to rob places be designated Schwartz bring loot him dispose divide proceeds them. Pursuant plan, robbed woman in Texas, her valuable jewels brought After petitioner repeatedly delayed settlement robbers, thieves finally fell not, which proved very helpful police. tipped off police where they could find Jarrett. had been jail about weeks, he consented telephone from sheriff's office. With knowledge consent Jarrett, professional operator set up an induction coil connected recorder amplifier enabled overhear simultaneously record conversations between These records used as evidence before jury that tried convicted accomplice crime robbery. records, admitted only after testified, corroborated discredited Court Criminal Appeals Texas upheld conviction, Tex.Cr.App., 246 S.W.2d 174, rehearing denied, 179. We granted certiorari, 343 975, 72 1073. 2 Petitioner contends § 605 Federal Communications Act1 makes inadmissible intercepted without petitioner's consent. pertinent provision statute reads follows: 3 '* * no person not being authorized sender shall intercept any communication divulge or publish existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, meaning such *.' Section 501 47 U.S.C., U.S.C.A. 501, provides penalty violation 605. 4 are dealing here application federal state proceedings. Without deciding, but assuming purposes this case, communications within Act, question we have is whether these barred statute, 605, use criminal proceeding court. 5 think not. Although contains reference admissibility obtained wire tapping, it has construed render court United States sought divulged thereof, Nardone v. States, 302 379, 58 275, 82 314, true even though intrastate calls. Weiss 308 321, 329, 60 269, 272, 84 298. calls would court, does follow Indeed, officer means constitute unlawful search seizure under Fourth Amendment Constitution nonetheless admissible Wolf State Colorado, 338 25, 69 1359, 93 1782, while evidence, if officer, clearly Weeks 383, 34 341, 652. problem somewhat different because introduction itself absence expression Congress, simply additional factor consider formulating rule its own courts. Enforcement statutory prohibition can achieved penal provisions 501. 6 This many times courts, uniformly held apply exclude Leon State, 180 Md. 279, 23 A.2d 706; People Stemmer, 298 N.Y. 728, 83 N.E.2d 141; Harlem Check Cashing Corp. Bell, 296 68 854; Channell, 107 Cal.App.2d 192, 236 P.2d 654. While cases controlling here, entitled consideration high standing courts come. 7 given constitutional law carefully legislated concerning it. In 1925 enacted providing laws should against accused case.2 1929 Article 727a Code Procedure was amended provide evidence,3 thus eliminating coverage States. 8 Where so will extend implication invalidate specific language statute. If Congress act field, manifest intention clearly. It presumed intended supersede exercise power unless there clear manifestation do so. supremacy lightly presumed. 9 'The principle applicable frequently stated. may circumscribe regulation occupy limited authority matters covered legislation implied Act fairly interpreted conflict State.' Atchison, T. &. S.F.R. Co. Railroad Commission California, 283 380, 392 393, 51 553, 556, 75 1128. See Savage Jones, 225 533, 32 715, 726, 56 1182. 10 'It never intends supersede, suspend, powers states, when so, purpose effect result manifested.' Reid 187 137, 148, 92, 96, 108. 11 due field. Our decision same pronounced evidence. 12 hold applies exclusion proceedings thereof; Since believe impose on decide 13 proceedings, questions what amounts 'interception,' interception, arise proceeding. 14 judgment affirmed. 15 Affirmed. 16 BLACK concurs result. 17 FRANKFURTER, concurring 18 involved case applicability prosecutions situations like present, U.S.C. cases, 314; 338, 266, 307, I join agree views subject expressed Minton. 19 matter complicated, however, Art. 727a, Vernon's (1948), renders trials 'of States'. limitation means, according law, construe Constitution, raise question. But bound deems is, might be, different. Tax Utah Van Cott, 306 511, 59 950. While, assumption, circumstances attending would, my view, prosecution, see sissent On Lee 747, 758, 967, 974, contrary. Therefore duty reach reached felt constrained, apparently did, governed constitutes Constitution. cannot say followed minority views, adhere, question, disregarded Court's authority. 20 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 21 Since, view (as indicated dissent 762, 976), wiretapping violated Amendment, excluded. probably need reached, excluded reverse judgment. prior decisions point affirmance. those reflect constructions erroneous. They impinge severely liberty individual give right intrude privacy life. practices sanction today acquired momentum ominous remain silent bow precedents 48 Stat. 1064, 151 et seq., seq. Tex.Laws 1925, c. 49, 1. Tex.Stat.1948 (Code Crim. Proc.) 727a.

Category: 0