Document: 394 U.S. 280 89 S.Ct. 1044 22 L.Ed.2d 274 Thomas R. KAISER, Petitioner,v.NEW YORK. No. 62. Argued Jan. 16, 1969. Decided March 24, Rehearing Denied May 5, See 1025, S.Ct 1622. Peter L. F. Sabbatino, New York City, for petitioner. Henry J. Boitel, petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. William Cahn, Mineola, N.Y., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion 1 The petitioner was convicted in a trial court 1966 on three counts conspiracy to extort, attempted extortion, and coercion. case prosecution rested principally content two telephone conversations between one his coconspirators. Tapes transcripts those were introduced at over petitioner's objection that they had been obtained an unlawful wiretap. conviction affirmed Appellate Division Supreme Court York1 Appeals.2 We granted certiorari.3 2 calls question made 1964 from outside City coconspirator bar Manhattan. recorded means device attached wires central terminal box basement building which located. This wiretapping conducted pursuant warrant issued under N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. § 813—a, statute with this subsequently dealt Berger v. York, 388 41, 87 1873, 18 1040, reversing Fourth Fourteenth Amendments. 3 contends Amendments as construed Berger, well 605 Federal Communications Act,4 prohibited introduction intercepted therefore require reversal conviction. For reasons stated below, we reject these contentions affirm judgment Appeals.5 4 Not until last Term Katz United States, 389 347, 88 507, 19 576, did overrule its prior decisions Amendment encompassed seizures speech only if law enforcement officers committed trespass or least physically invaded constitutionally protected area speaker.6 Olmstead 277 438, 48 564, 72 L.Ed. 944, explicitly held without such intrusion not search seizure. That rule modified York. Court's discussion while recognizing other cases negated statements are never Amendment, cast no doubt uon '(t)he basis (Olmstead) decision'—'that Constitution forbid obtaining evidence unless it involved actual entry into house.'7 Furthermore, found overbreadth 813—a repugnant limited extent permitted 'trespassory area.'8 5 Olmstead, then, controlling interpretation respect overruled Katz. And Desist 244, 1030, 248, have today is be applied wholly prospectively. Since occurred before decided accomplished any fruits inadmissible exclusionary Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 6 1081. Nor Act exclusion conversations. Until our decision Lee Florida, 392 378, 2096, 20 1166, state courts free accept violative 605.9 extended Nardone10 but has also apply Fuller Alaska, 393 80, 61, 21 212. 1966, long date Lee. 7 Affirmed. 8 BLACK, concurs result dissenting opinions 70, 1889, 364, 518, 576. 9 DOUGLAS dissents. 10 HARLAN (dissenting). 11 It conceded largely upon acquired nontrespassory 813—a. affirms ground today's necessarily dictates illegal, wiretap will tapping after 576 (1967). took place However, here direct review, Part I my Desist, supra, U.S., 258—259, S.Ct., 1038—1039, would hold entitled benefit rule. 12 necessary me consider whether federal constitutional rights violated wiretapping. Were do so, decide issue inquiring whether, facts particular light construing valid Warrants Clause Amendment. Ker California, 374 23, 30—34, 83 1623, 1628—1630, 726 (1963); see 1081 (1961). believe approach foreclosed 1040 In 'bugging' because face contain cons itutionally required safeguards. true reach should overruled. But holding considered rather than depended way fact physical intrusion. procedure prescribed applies equally Hence, 'on face' seem embrace 13 dissented adopted Berger. 89, 1898, et seq. continue disagree approach. Yet think must taken having version then effect could possibly satisfy requirements Amendment.* regard myself bound am reluctantly compelled conclude against seized violation Constitution, consequently cannot stand. 28 A.D.2d 647, 282 N.Y.S.2d 207. N.Y.2d 86, 286 801, 233 N.E.2d 818. 390 1023, 1436, 281. Section 605, Stat. 1103, 47 U.S.C. reads pertinent part follows: '(N)o person being authorized sender shall intercept communication divulge * existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, meaning *.' prosecutor's references 'confessions' so inaccurate misleading deny him due process. characterization raises substantial question. jury aware prosecutor adverting overheard knew circumstances incriminating made. contrast situation Miller Pate, 386 1, 785, 17 690, there misrepresentation about jurors themselves position evaluate. ante, 247—248, 1032—1033. 51, 1879. Id., 44, 1876. id., 43, 57, 60, 64, 69, 1875, 1882, 1884, 1886, 1888. Schwartz Texas, 344 199, 73 232, 97 231. Nardone 302 379, 58 275, 82 314, admissible criminal trials. Benanti 355 96, 78 155, 126, excluded There amendments June 1962, July 1964, case. view 'retroactive.' present appeal time decided, invoke advanced Desist.

Category: 0