Document: 355 U.S. 96 78 S.Ct. 155 2 L.Ed.2d 126 Salvatore BENANTI, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 231. Argued Oct. 29, 1957. Decided Dec. 9, Messrs. George J. Todaro, New York City, Jacob Kossman, Philadelphia, pa., Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion Court. 1 The question presented by petitioner is whether evidence obtained as result wiretapping state law-enforcement officers, without participation federal authorities, admissible in a court. Petitioner was convicted illegal possession and transportation distilled spirits tax stamps affixed thereto violation 26 U.S.C. §§ 5008(b)(1), 5642, U.S.C.A. 5642. police, suspecting that others were dealing narcotics law, warrant accordance with law1 authorizing them to tap wires bar which known frequent. On May 10, 1956, police overheard conversation between another it said 'eleven pieces' be transported night at certain time place City. Acting according this information, followed stopped car driven petitioner's brother. No found, but hidden eleven five-gallon cans alcohol required law. brother turned over authorities prosecution followed. At trial first government witness, officer, testified events leading up discovery an automobile had been then taken his appointed spot. mention made wiretap on direct examination. However, cross-examination witness admitted information causing follow intercept came from wiretap.2 redirect examination prosecutor sought prove authorized Government introduced second official, who substantially first, admitting existed occasioned knowledge contents wiretapped conversation. words not disclosed jury although they judge defense counsel.3 record silent told our view unimportant he or not. 3 Petitioner's motion suppress denied convicted. Court Appeals Second Circuit affirmed, 244 F.2d 389, holding while action officials violated Section 605 Federal Communications Act, still admissible. We granted certiorari. 801, 6. Petitioner, relying Court's supervisory powers court system, claims admission barred Constitution 605. do reach constitutional questions case can determined under statute. states pertinent part:4 4 '* * no person being sender shall any communication divulge publish existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, meaning such intercepted *.' I. 5 In Nardone v. United States, 302 379, 58 275, 82 L.Ed. 314, 308 338, 60 266, 84 307, held agents inadmissible Schwartz State Texas, 344 199, 73 232, 97 231 same type where agents. before us, containing elements these three cases, forces choice different results reached. 6 decisions laid down underlying premises upon based all subsequent consideration crux those plain statute created prohibition against persons violating integrity system telephonic may used secure conviction. 382, 276, 314. Moreover, decision asserts, distinctions designed defeat will countenanced. 340, 267, 307. hold correct application above principle dictates means forbidden 605, agents, 7 if earlier least disclosure existence communication,5 forbids divulgence 'the meaning' message. effect contributing conviction here manifest. free speculate communication, source Government's evidence, further proof criminal activities.6 continued use now linked aware its obvious significance case.7 8 Respondents argue should have referring supra, drawing parallel Fourth Amendment. It urged long occurred even court; Government, fault, handicapped. Texas does indicate approval proposition. Both officers there involved. rationale despite due regard federal-state relations precluded conclusion Congress intended thwart rule absence clear indication effect. instant we are evidence. Although committed wiretap, brought about part law,8 court.9 9 Furthermore, confronted statute, resting provisions, neither necessary nor appropriate discuss analogy suggested applicable Amendment.10 contains express, absolute communications. This example so clearly condemned other circumstances decision:11 10 'To forbid (these) methods put curb their full indirect would only invite very deemed 'inconsistent ethical standards destructive personal liberty.' What context Silverthorne Lumber Co. 251 385, 392, 40 182, 183, 64 319, here: 'The essence provision forbidding acquisition way merely acquired all." 11 has purpose enhancement proper administration justice. To impute anything less give 'a self-defeating, disingenuous purpose.'12 340—341, 267—268, II. 12 As alternative argument support judgment below, respondent urges interception because placed acting law York. statutes York13 provide ex parte order issued judges rank oath affirmation reasonable ground believe crime identifies telephone line affected thereby. undisputed pursuant executed 13 Respondent urge that, constitutionally speaking, power face conflicting Cf. Weiss 321, 327, 269, 271, 298. Rather exercised ower general terms, operate prevent exercise legitimate functions. read particular, contrary. 14 Act comprehensive scheme regulation interstate communication.14 safeguard interests protected portion applies both intrastate supra. natural respondent's removed statute's protection because, noted Weiss,15 intercepter cannot discern two listen both. did intend protections plainly guaranteed vulnerable position. points portions some limited authority States field communication. character matters, aspects utility service public, technical nature16 contrast broader policy considerations motivating 605.17 grants underscores allow make exceptions Setion so. light considerations, keeping mind public scheme, find Congress, setting out mean legislation contradict section policy.18 Commonwealth Pennsylvania Nelson, 350 497, 76 477, 100 640; Hill Florida rel. Watson, 325 538, 65 1373, 89 1782; Hines Davidowitz, 312 52, 61 399, 85 581.19 15 reversed cause remanded District proceedings inconsistent opinion. 16 Reversed. N.Y. Const. Art. I, § 12; Code Criminal Procedure, 813—a (1942). R. 7: 'Cross Todaro (defense counsel): 'Q. Officer, you vicinity Reno Bar quite frequently? A. Yes, sir. Did Police Department Bar, know? several taps Bar. obtain investigation conversation? I regard— reference Benantis. Benanti? Yes. You also going location? But through gave lead trap? Part information.' 52: '(The following took jury:) Court: assistant district attorney (state) (authorizing wiretap). just tell you, looked premises, your concession (that law), generally made, actually well based. 'Also, whatever factual interest motion, Murphy night, want get facts that. wire thought meant narcotics, why car.' 48 Stat. 1103, 47 Because present need decide Also us issue fruits divulging etc., prejudice shown efforts mitigate showing instigated account charge tried. prejudicial error overcome. heart (1) testimony policemen, scene one whom arrested discovered alcohol, (2) chamist analysis seized alcohol. below said: 'But equally basis whatever, apprehension Angelo (petitioner's brother) seizure led appellant's violations convicted; sequence clear.' page 390. A complementary distinction Rea 214, 292, 233. There denial injunction agent Rules 18 and, unable introduce court, prosecution. answer interfere judicial procedure, states: command happens They fact condoned practice relevancy problem.' Id., 217, 294. appearing imply out-of-court invalidation remained open solely search See Lustig 338 74, 78—79, 69 1372, 1373 1374, 93 1819. concerned scope 267. Goldstein 316 114, 62 1000, 86 1312, party induced testify exposure own conversations wiretapped. 122, 1004. broad language Amendment discussion right complain. pages 120, 121, 1003, rejected since allows 'sender' message consent divulgence, protect him. N.Y.Const. N.Y.Code 151 et seq. response Presidential calling attention disjointed forms primary create commission 'to regulate consider needed additional legislation.' H.R.Rep. 1850, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 3. Note remarks Senator Dill, Chairman Committee Interstate Commerce, bill Senate, theretofore cursory telegraph companies. Cong.Rec. 8822. 328, 271. 220(h), 220(h) Commission carriers accounting systems depreciation accounting. 7. 221(b), originally enacted, enabled commissions exchange services metropolitan areas overlapping lines.' S.Rep.No. 781, 5; reserved U.S.C.(Supp. II) 152(b), removes jurisdiction 'charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, regulations connection radio carrier.' S.Rep. 17 314; 307; passing, pointed Attorneys General grant circumstances. See, e.g., Hearings Subcommittee House Judiciary H.R. 762, 867, 4513, 4728, 5096, 84th 1st 28; Rogers, Case Wire Tapping, 63 Yale L.J. 792 (1954). declined this, seem unreasonable willing sort exception part. 19 While refused overturn satisfied nonetheless 202, 234.

Category: 0