Document: 355 U.S. 107 78 S.Ct. 161 2 L.Ed.2d 134 Floyd Linn RATHBUN, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 30. Argued Oct. 29, 1957. Decided Dec. 9, Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1958. See 925, 363. Mr. Thomas K. Hudson, Denver, Colo., for petitioner. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., respondent. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case concerns issue whether contents a communication overheard on regularly used telephone extension with consent one party to conversation are admissible in federal court.1 Petitioner was convicted violations 18 U.S.C. § 875(b) and (c), U.S.C.A. 875(b, c) transmitting an interstate which threatened life Sparks order obtain from him stock certificate held as collateral loan. On March 16, 1955, petitioner, who New York, spoke by Sparks, Pueblo, Colorado. Anticipating another call requested that members Pueblo police force overhear conversation. When petitioner phoned early morning 17, two officers at Sparks' direction listened room home. had not been installed there just this purpose but regular connection, previously placed normally used. At trial testified over timely objection during because he would no surrender certificate. Court Appeals affirmed. 236 F.2d 514. We granted certiorari. 352 965, 77 354, 320. Benanti v. United States, 96, 155, determined information obtained divulged state agents violation Section 605 Federal Communications Act2 is inadmissible court. The pertinent portion states: 3 '* * person being authorized sender shall intercept any divulge or publish existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, meaning such intercepted *.' 4 Since divulgence communication, only facts before us has unauthorized interception within 605.3 courts have split their determination question. Some statute proscribes use allow someone without both parties.4 Others concluded inapplicable where consented.5 hold violated 'interception' Congress intended word be Every must interpreted light reason common understanding reach results legislature. Cf. Holy Trinity Church 143 457, 12 511, 36 L.Ed. 226; American Security & Trust Co. Commissioners, 224 491, 32 553, 56 856. That principle if we attributed acceptance occur here position argued 5 widely instrument home office,6 yet nothing evidence congressional intent, argues meant place severe restriction its ordinary subscribers, denying them right family member, employee, trusted friend, even listen converation subscriber party. points opposite conclusion. Immediately following quoted above, continues: 6 entitled thereto receive assist receiving foreign wire radio same therein contained his own benefit 7 clear inference may it him. itself privileged, other secrecy merely using telephone. It conceded those believe conduct violates either record it.7 differ way instead repeating message out handset so could hear it. see distinction between sort action permitting outsider purpose. 8 error accepting petitioner's argument brought into sharper focus fact penal nature, first punishable fine more than $10,000 imprisonment term exceeding year, both.8 For example, follows every secretary listens business her employer's marked potential criminal. unreasonable extend criminal liability wholly innocent ordinary. 9 Common experience tells particular number cause bell ring ordinarily instrument. Each takes risk privacy parties complain. Consequently, element 605, interception, occurred. 10 Affirmed. 11 FRANKFURTER, whom DOUGLAS joins, dissenting. Although had, Olmstead 277 438, 48 564, 72 944, decided neither Fourth Amendment nor general judicial principles governing trials States barred through communications law-enforcing sender, few years later provided 13 'no Act June 19, 1934, Stat. 1064, 1104, 47 605. 14 If attitude lies behind phrase 'strict construction statute', i.e., favor accused, can emphatic illustration, found Nardone cases, provision given effect implications section bar most relevant persuasive obtained, sender's authorization, law officers, likewise independently secured result leads afforded interception. 302 379, 58 275, 82 314; 308 338, 60 266, 84 307. whole point vigorous dissent directed against literal application person' thereby 'enabling depraved criminals further plans telephone, secure knowledge these involve kidnapping murder, conversations never revealed court.' Sutherland, dissenting page 385, 278. Court's gave short decisive answer: 'We nevertheless face plain words forbid anyone, unless message, direct equally language substance 'any person." 382, 276. 15 In case, conviction based testimony officer made listening-in 'authorized sender,' wir, suggested was, carrying function—an intrusion listening legally insulated transmission thought speaker hearer—does fall prohibition carried means 'a party.' But, surely, availability 'regularly extension' does make inoperative. relies 'the party' evidently implies purview conceal himself house suite offices having several extensions' surreptitiously utilize o conversations. 16 said overhearing 'with But satisfied says sender.' Court, Nardone, read mean person, incumbent construe 'sender' here, receiver. aware wide extensions practice listeningin extensions. rejected employment 'to tap wires aid detection criminals.' 381, refused qualify rigorous policy expressed enactment. And today, rejects, I say rightly, plausible contention well-known legislative authorization wire-tapping some ought deemed qualified strict Congress. 17 suggested, however, accepted modes our time secretaries principals. A fairly called alter ego. so, much automatic context problem tape recorder. Surely facilitate crime His participation when occupies precisely occupied sanctioned practice, cases rigorously enforced what theretofore lawful practice. Sharing views Judge Learned Hand Polakoff, Cir., 112 888, Reitmeister Reitmeister, 162 691, reverse judgment. grant certiorari limited question, phrased petitioner: 'Is third adjoining room, prohibited statute, wit Sec. Title 47, U.S.C.A.' Implicit phrasing question did consent. 1103, do decide since they 155. A.L.R. 607; James 89 U.S.App.D.C. 201, 191 472; Hill, 149 F.Supp. 83; 691. White, 228 832; Flanders 222 163; Sullivan, 116 480, affirmed, 95 78, 219 760; Lewis, 87 970, reversed grounds, Billeci 274, 184 394, 24 A.L.R.2d 881; cf. Rayson 238 160; Bookie, 229 130; Pierce, 124 264, 281. 1934 Bell Telephone System, including affiliates, 1,315,000 telephones ou total 13,378,000. 1956 System 8,465,000 50,990,000. Exhibit 1364 Commission Special Investigation; Commission, 'Statistics Industry year ended December 31, 1956.' 889: need man hears else extension, or, bar, allowing interpose recording machine. receiver certainly broadcast pleases, will often give consent, express implied, interposition listener.' (Emphasis added.) Note also regulations control presuppose declare tariff companies devices unjust 201 Act, 201; Matter Use Recording Devices Connection Service, F.C.C. 1033, 1053. 1100, 501, 501. Additional years' imprisonment, both.

Category: 0