Document: 415 U.S. 143 94 S.Ct. 977 39 L.Ed.2d 225 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Irving KAHN and Minnie Kahn. No. 72—1328. Argued Dec. 11 12, 1973. Decided Feb. 20, 1974. Syllabus On the Government's application for an order authorizing a wiretap interception of home telephones respondent Irving Kahn, suspected bookmaker, pursuant to Title III Omnibus Crime Control Safe Streets Act 1968, District Judge entered 18 U.S.C. § 2518, which described be tapped found probable cause believe that Mr. Kahn 'others as yet unknown' were using conduct illegal gambling business, authorized FBI agents intercept wire communications 'of' unknown.' The intercepted incriminating calls made by in Arizona Mrs. at their Chicago, also 'a known figure.' respondents subsequently indicted violating Travel Act. Upon being notified intention introduce conversations trial, moved suppress them. Court granted motion. Appeals affirmed, construing requirements §§ 2518(1)(b)(iv) 2518(4)(a) person whose are is identified if known, excluding from term any persons who careful Government investigation would disclose probably activities, since had not shown further Kahn's activities have implicated his wife she was 'person within purview order. Held: 1. requires naming or only when law enforcement authorities individual 'committing offense' sought, it undisputed here no reason suspect complicity business before wiretapping began, follows under statute among class 'as covered Pp. 151 155. 2. Neither language nor suppression legally himself party. 155 158. 7 Cir., 471 F.2d 191, reversed remanded. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Anna R. Lavin, Ill., respondents. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 March 1970, attorney United States Department submitted 2510—2520, William J. Campbell Northern Illinois. affidavit accompanying contained information indicating bookmaker operated residence used two business.1 noted informants stated they refuse testify against telephone company records alone insufficient support bookmaking conviction, physical surveillance normal search-and-seizure techniques unlikely produce useful evidence. therefore concluded 'normal investigative procedures reasonably appear succeed,' asked authorization over named lines, concerning offenses might obtained. 2 order, approving application.2 He specifically there succeed providing federal officials with sufficient evidence successfully prosecute such crimes. special 'intercept others activities. 3 provided status reports filed on fifth 10th days following date showing what progress been toward achievement order's objective, describing need interceptions.3 first report, 25, indicated terminated because its objectives attained. report gave summary garnered interceptions, stating part 21 Chicago discussed wins losses, same Kann, Irving's wife, figure,' whom various kinds betting information. 4 Both facility interstate commerce promote, manage, facilitate violation 1952.4 prosecutor Kahns he intended into trial court turn motions conversations. These heard Thomas McMillen Illinois, who, unreported opinion, motion suppress. viewed between 'marital privilege,' hence inadmissible trial.5 In addition, all other participant suppressed outside scope Campbell's ground time original application. 5 interlocutory appeal order.6 A divided panel Seventh Circuit affirmed Court's suppressing but based marital privilege. 191. held meet could admitted evidence: 6 '(1) party conversations, (2) unknown." Id., 195. then construed statutory 2518(1)(b) (iv) 'persons (who) government activities.' 196. Since this case felt 8 We petition certiorari, 411 980, 93 2275, 36 956, resolve seemingly important issue involving construction relatively new statute.7 9 At outset, worth noting issues involved case. First, we presented attack upon constitutionality 1968. Secondly, review does involve questions propriety Department's internal wiretap.8 Finally, argument failed manner minimize innocent conversations.9 question simply whether wishes respondents' corresponding III. 10 deciding meaning relied heavily expressed objective Congress enactment III: protection personal privacy those engaging communications.10 light clear congressional concern, reasoned, lightly claim 'unknown' Thus, enough taking applied order; required show discovered thorough conducted our view, neither legislative history specific compels conclusion. To sure, concerned protecting enacted statute. But authorize electronic weapon operations organized crime.11 There is, course, some tension these objectives, how struck balance particular instance cannot resolved through general reference statute's concern privacy. Rather, starting point, construction, precise wording chosen enacting 12 Section 2518(1) 18, sets out detail included communications. sole provision pertaining identification 2518(1)(b)(iv), state 'the identity person, committing offense intercepted.' (Emphasis supplied.) This plainly seem require actually one specified 2516. failure include her name thus comport literal 2518(1)(b)(iv). 13 Moreover, conclude omission actual conflict provisions specify judge prepares can expected learn target individual's application, hardly inferred imposes broader requirement than 14 effect, read 2518 identify 'all persons, discoverable, says: 'known' offense.' Had wished engraft separate 'discoverability' onto III, surely done so plainer now embodied 2518. 15 Appeals' interpretation broad impact. fully investigate possibility likely user criminal applying greatly subvert effectiveness mechanism constructed. hand, holding complete investigation, teen-aged children, frequenters for. If store office, well everyone access it—in cases, literally hundreds people—even though them law. It open considerable doubt ultimately serve interests event, drafted contains intimation total demands.12 16 arriving reading seemed face value result amounting 'virtual warrant,' anyone talked line. 197. allow unfettered discretion. By own terms, conferred authority 'concerning above-described (gambling) offenses.'13 accord execute warrant conversations.14 And limited length possible days, while requiring every five abuses quickly halted. subject left executing free seize will communication came wire—and indication took place case.15 17 conclude, therefore, sought. interceptions remaining whether, admissible Kahns' concluded. effect exclude 'known figure' Again, unable either underlying result. 19 signed unknown . telephones, subscribed Kahn.' refer others; rather, describes 'communications telephones. conversation substantial feat verbal gymnastics, render phrase 'and quite redundant, perforce communicate except others. 20 adopted odds purposes needed 'reveal identities (Irving Kahn's) confederates, places operation, nature conspiracy involved.' evident revealed For example, confederate call absence, leave name, return number, message. Or, associates come family employ business.16 difficult circumstances meant future trial; given employed today us, conclusion untenable. Nothing that, despite language, must As already noted, 'if known.' implication commit identifiable, may, nevertheless, properly statute.17 necessarily others, least all.18 22 reasons, hold error interpreted 23 Accordingly, judgment reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 24 ordered. 25 Reversed 26 DOUGLAS, BRENNAN MARSHALL concur, dissenting. 27 decision Berger v. New York, 388 41, 87 1873, 1040, wiretap—long considered kind 'search' 'seizure'—was brought reach Fourth Amendment.1 dominant feature Amendment command 'no Warrants shall issue, cause'—a wrote 2518.2 2518(3), issuing satisfied facts police 'probable cause' belief 'an individual' offense, 2518(3) (a); attained interception, 2518(3)(b); tried too dangerous, 2518(3)(c), facilities about commission 2518(3)(d). goes 2518(4)(a). 28 present 'Irving connected judicial 29 disallowed use Kahn; agreed, saying probable-cause necessary requirements: (1) 'that unknown," That seems commonsense interpretation, phone talks 'others' 'unknown.' construe allowing search putting amounts, said, 'to virtual violation' rights, id., 30 Whether satisfy below solely Congress. Seizure words warrant. narrow called him. 31 passing legislated, historically license everything discretion officers. Frisbie Butler, Kirby 213 (Conn.);3 Quincy's Mass.Rep. 1761 1772, App. I. 32 prejudice warrants I shared,4 impliedly warrant, do allows entire list outgoing incoming even member household 33 sanctioned practice. 34 place, just continued until steps broaden Kahn.5 35 time6 obtain assume obtained 25. Then decided particularity household. Under today's apparently national dragnet becomes operative. Members suspect, visitors home, doctors, ministers, merchants, teachers, attorneys, having connection caught up web. 37 affirm below. affiant, agent Federal Bureau Investigation, detailed alleged derived observations three unnamed sources, past reliability investigations affiant. corroborated figure another State. claimed Jake Jacobs private business. subsequent Jacobs' phone. Any telephone, however, play role us. provides pertinent part: Each oral writing oath affirmation competent jurisdiction applicant's make information: '(b) full statement applicant, justify should issued, including (i) details has been, being, committed, (ii) description location where intercepted, (iii) par- ticular type sought intercepted; '(3) may enter ex parte requested modified, territorial sitting, determines basis applicant that— '(a) committing, enumerated section 2516 chapter; interception; '(c) dangerous; '(d) which, where, used, leased to, listed of, commonly person. '(4) specify— granted; relates; agency communications, application; '(e) period during authorized, automatically terminate obtained.' 2518(6) 'Whenever chapter, issued interception. Such intervals require.' Act, 1952, provides: Whoever travels foreign uses commerce, mail, intent to— distribute proceeds unlawful activity; '(2) crime violence otherwise establish, carry on, promotion, management, establishment, carrying activity, thereafter performs attempts perform acts subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), fined more $10,000 imprisoned years, both. 'unlawful activity' means enterprise gambling, liquor excise tax paid, narcotics, controlled substances (as defined 102(6) Controlled Substances Act) prostitution laws State committed States, extortion, bribery, arson States. Investigations violations supervision Secretary Treasury.' indictment attributed Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, 28—1(a), (10). 2517(4) that: 'No privileged accordance with, chapter lose character.' 2518(10)(b) gives right take granting 3731 generally appeals pretrial orders cross-petition raising privilege argument, denied. 986, 2271, 964. currently sub judice Giordano, 905, 1530, 194, Chavez, 412 2292, 969. relevant part, 2518(5) requires: 'Every extension thereof contain way ..' See Pub.L. 90—351, Tit. 801(b) (d), 82 Stat. 211; S.Rep.No.1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 66, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 2112. 801(c) above supra, 66—76, true, 2518(1)(c) 2518(3)(c) demonstrate, find, procedures' succeed. designed assure resorted situations traditional suffice expose crime. 101, Once necessity shown, impose additional determine complicity. 2518(4)(c) relates.' 2518(1)(b)(iii), imposing similar cf. 2517(5), certain crimes n. 9, supra. fallacy 'general warrant' approach illustrated examination analogous conventional seizure. cause, operations, seizure bearing handwriting lawful, fact independently investigated. fact, long property seized specificity, failing owner premises directed, best practice, pass muster Amendment. Hanger 398 91, 99 (C.A.8); Miller Sigler, 353 424, 428 (C.A.8) (dictum); Dixon 211 547, 549 (C.A.5); Carney 79 821, 822 (C.A.6); Fitzmaurice, 45 133, 135 (C.A.2) (L. Hand, J.); Mascolo, Specificity Requirements Amendment: Defining Zone Privacy, 73 Dick.L.Rev. 1, 21. Fiorella, 468 688, 691 ('The describe searched, things seized', seized'). referring from' clearly envisioned receiving transmitting Yet instances always end line, especially bettors confederates often occasion dial numbers issue. situation bettor repeatedly number wagers, never told Senate rejected amendment 114 Cong.Rec. 14718 (1968) (Amendment 735). 'The people secure houses, papers, effects, unreasonable searches seizures, violated, supported Oath affirmation, particularly seized.' '(Y)ou commanded forthwith complainant thinks proper, find lost pork, same, found, taken him proper authority, examined according law.' 213—214. ruled: 'With regard warrant—Although duty justice peace (in doing judicially) limit places, he, circumstances, suspect; arrest goods with: case, general, illegal'; 215. explicit 2510 et seq., manifest effort prevent proceeding warrants. 2518(4)(a), intercepted. Sections 2518(4)(b) (c) granted, relates. 'may approve longer achieve authorization.' 2518(5). An moreover, 'shall chapter.' Ibid. Before demands officers provide facility, communication, 2518(1)(b), view '(e)ach reflects constitutional particularization.' 2190. Furthermore, judge, individual. inserted them, link place. Together test Constitution most discriminate comply particularity.' 102, 2191. 74—75; 14712, 14750 (remarks Sen. McClellan); 14728 (Sen. Tydings); 14715 Tower); 14763 Percy); 14748 Mundt). incriminating, obtaining broadening without Silverthorne Lumber Co. 251 385, 40 182, 64 L.Ed. 319. papers parties' rights demanding form owners papers. Holmes, speaking Court, procedure, saying: essence forbidding acquisition merely acquired all. Of mean become sacred inaccessible. knowledge gained independent source proved like wrong proposed.' U.S., 392, S.Ct., 183. Cf. Johnson 333 10, 68 367, 92 436; Di Re, 332 581, 222, 210; Trupiano 334 699, 1229, 1663.

Category: 0