Legal Document

408 U.S. 41 92 Supreme Court Reporter 2357 33 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 179 David GELBARD and Sidney Parnas, Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES, Petitioner, versus Jogues EGAN Anne Elizabeth Walsh. Nos. 71—110, 71—263. Argued March 27, 1972. Decided June 26, Syllabus Where a grand jury witness is adjudicated in civil contempt under 28 Code KF62 § 1826(a) for refusing 'without just cause shown to comply with an order of the court testify,' may invoke as defense 18 2515, which directs that '(w)henever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part contents such evidence derived therefrom be received . proceeding before .,' since showing interrogation would based upon illegal interception witness' communications constitute 'just cause' precludes finding contempt. Pp. 46—61. Number 443 Federal Reporter, 2nd 837, reversed remanded; 71—263, 450 199 231, affirmed. Michael E. Tigar, San Francisco, Cal., petitioners Gelbard Parnas. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., States. Jack Judge Levine, Philadelphia, Pa., Joguez Egan Walsh, pro hac viceBy special leave Court. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion 1 These cases present challenges validity adjudications contempt, pursuant 1826(a),1 witnesses federal juries who refused orders testify. The refusals were defended ground was information obtained from witnesses' communications, allegedly intercepted by agents means wiretapping electronic surveillance. A provision Title III Omnibus Crime Control Safe Streets Act 1968, 82 Statutes-at-Large 211, amended, §§ 2510—2520, '(w) henever if disclosure violation this chapter.' 2515.2 question presented whether witnesses, proceedings 1826(a), are entitled prohibition 2515 charges brought against them In Appeals Ninth Circuit held they not do so. Gelbard, 837 (1971). 71 263, Third Circuit, en banc, reached contrary conclusion. re Grand Jury Proceedings, Harrisburg, Pa. (Egan), (1971); (Walsh), 231 We granted certiorari. 404 990, 531, 30 541 (1971).3 disagree agree Circuit. 2 71—110. district judge approved wiretaps telephones Perry Paul, alleged bookmaker, Jerome Zarowitz, former executive Las Vegas casino. course those taps, overheard conversations between Paul petitioner Zarowitz Petitioners subsequently called convened Los Angeles investigate possible violations gambling laws. Government asserted questioned about third parties questions petitioners' telephone conversations. appeared jury, but declined answer their until afforded opportunity challenge legality interceptions. Following hearing, District Central California found and, committed custody life answered questions. 3 Respondents Walsh Pennsylvania, investigate, among other crimes, plot kidnap official. Pursuant 2514, both respondents transactional immunity return testimony. on ground, others, Government's did reply respondents' allegations.4 Middle Pennsylvania also 1826(a). 4 Section expressly limits adjudication case 'refuses without testify.' Our inquiry, then, constitutes turns construction Act.5 5 * III, Congress enacted comprehensive scheme regulation See Court, 407 297, 301—306, 2125, 2128—2131, 32 752. authorizes private only when law enforcement officials investigating specified serious crimes receive prior judicial approval, approval given except compliance stringent conditions. 2516, 2518(1)—(8). If accordance provisions disclosed used certain circumstances. 2517. Except authorized however, all interceptions flatly prohibited. Unauthorized use through unauthorized 2511(1), victim interception, disclosure, recover damages, 2520. bars official bodies fruits interceptions, provides procedures moving suppress various proceedings, 2518(9)—(10). 6 these disobeying produce evidence—their testimony—before juries. Consequently, primary contention evidentiary charges. addressing contention, we must assume, posture cases, testimony seeks be, within meaning 'evidence derived' communications. assume thus potential 'disclosure' III. 2517(3). short, proceed premise prohibits presentation compelled witnesses. 7 narrow question, circumstances basis refusal obey think may. 8 unequivocal language expresses fundamental policy adopted subject As congressional findings make plain, strictly limit employment techniques acquiring information: 9 'To safeguard privacy innocent persons, where none consented should allowed competent jurisdiction remain control supervision authorizing court. Interception further limited types offenses specific categories crime assurances justified thereby will misused.' 801(d), 211.6 10 Senate committee report accompanied underscores policy: 11 'Title it dual purpose (1) protecting (2) delineating uniform conditions authorized. To assure title surveillance persons than duly officers engaged investigation prevention after authorization probable cause.' S.Rep.No.1097, 90th Cong., Sess., 66 (1968); U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, Page 2153. Hence, although invasions individual circumstances, protection overriding concern.7 Indeed, articulate clearly intent utilize enforce limitations imposed surveillance: 12 'In protect effectively integrity administrative prevent obstruction interstate commerce, necessary define authorized, prohibit thereof courts proceedings.' 801(b), 211 (emphasis added.8 13 And report, like findings, specifically addressed itself enforcement, privacy: 14 'Virtually concede hands little justification consent one participants. No quarrels proposition Only striking at aspects problem can adequately protected. prohibition, too, enforced appropriate sanctions. Criminal penalties have play. But remedies unlawful invasion privacy. Provision made recourse damages. perpetrator denied his actions criminal proceedings. Each objectives sought proposed legislation.' supra, 69; 2156 added.) 15 central legislative scheme. Its importance 'the privacy' could more clear.9 purposes whole subverted plain command ignored asked interception. Moreover, serves communications,10 ensure become partners conduct: 'to witness, pain imprisonment, disclose terms thwart objective excluding entangle acts agents. 16 sum, simply cannot understood sanctioned excluded 2515. Contrary assertion over done with, compel compounds statutorily proscribed adding injury insult disclosure. And, course, makes 2511(1); see available charge, victim, once again, crime. Finally, recognition 'relieves judges anomalous duty person failing cooperate prosecutor conduct which, pursued unchecked, himself heavy penalties.' F.2d, 220 (Rosenn, J., concurring). 'And court, petition department, sentence herself wiretapping, jail participate exploitation explicit stand our system justice its head.' Evans, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 323, 452 1239, 1252 (1971) (Wright, II 17 conclusion charge finds additional support 3504, Organized 1970, 84 935. 3504 confirmation intended reliance might refuse provides: '(a) 19 '(1) Upon claim party aggrieved inadmissible because product act act, opponent shall affirm deny occurrence act.' 20 Under 3504(a)(2), relating inadmissibility mandatory 'unlawful act' took place 19, effective date 3504(a)(3), there five-year limitation consideration 1968. (b), reference defines 'UNLAWFUL ACT' AS ONE INVOLVING ILLEGAL WIRetapping surveillance.11 21 establishes followed 'upon because' tracks application '(t)he defining forums, jurisdictions section applicable taken 2515.' S.Rep.No.91—617, 154 (1969).12 'any jury,' 'a aggrieved' 'party' proceeding. 'claim inadmissible' inadmissible. contemplating necessarily recognizes rely claiming Government, claim,' required 3504(a)(1) 'affirm alleged' confirms meant defend invoking 22 urges, prescribed claims cannot, therefore, provide disagree. While subsections (a)(2) (a)(3) apply clear face 350413 history subsection (a)(1), imposing claim' similarly limited. 23 omission (a)(1) inadvertent. Subsection original bill, bill contain conterparts limitation.14 Hearings Subcommittee Laws Procedures Committee Judiciary S. et al., 91st 1st 102— 105 (1969). added suggestion Department Justice. At time practice searching files eavesdropping. advised while had 'conduct(ing) examinations matter even motion ha(d) filed defendants assured examination requirement rather hav(ing) continued viability current policy.' Id., 553. explained 'since (subsection (a)(1)) requires pending predicate sets aside wasteful defendant.' 24 reason assigned enacting post- pre-June same true House. There supported beneficial victims Senator McClellan, example, testified House Subcommittee, indicated 'places affirmative investigative conduct.' 'The first (of 3504), admit defendant's rights, actually places codifies burden 84, 104 (1970). Other thought unnecessary.15 organization submitted disapproved illegalities claim. 562 (Section Law American Bar Association). It significant questioning representative hearings directed Department's views insertion (a)(3). 659; written response, id. 675—676. 25 inserted hearings. apparent version operative regard place: 26 'Paragraph act. provision, defendant standing conduct, involving fact occurred. occurred, paragraph (2), below, govern records transcripts counsel, unless (3) applies.' H.R.Rep.No.91—1549, 51 (1970); 4027. 27 This explanation demonstrates claim'16 deny' whenever 'claims(s) is' becomes relevant determined issue arises bearing claim.17 argues, finally, construed allow '(i)f portion (Title III),' Brief omitted another 2518(10)(a), '(a)ny person,'18 'move communication, therefrom.'19 does follow suppression grant 1826(a).20 concern applicability 2518(10)(a) so far discernible apparently able motions impede issuance indictments: 'Normally, character enforcible individual, (United Blue, 384 251, 86 1416, 510 (1966)). change general rule.' 106 2195. 'general rule,' illustrated indictment dismissed trial 'acquire(d) incriminating (law),' 'tainted jury.' U.S., 255 n. 3, S.Ct., 1419; Lawn States, 355 339, 78 311, 321 (1958); Costello 350 359, 76 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956). rule nothing whatever situation testify attempts subsequent expressed view foreclosed raising 29 Furthermore, normally discover filing usual procedure is, motion, penalty noncompliance. embodies traditional procedure. 2518 (10)(a) well reflect acceptance adequate cases. suppose Congress, providing motions, deprive otherwise them. Although points statements effect 'limits' read mean method enforcing restrictions procedures, grounds 2518(10)(a).21 judgment 71—110 remanded consistent opinion.22 71—263 affirmed.23 31 ordered. Affirmed part, part. DOUGLAS, concurring. 34 N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions join believe that, independently statutory refuge choose provide, Fourth Amendment shields (or subpoena) garnered searches invade own constitutionally protected 35 hold 1968 offends Amendment, bugging, reasons often elsewhere. E.g., Cox 406 934, 1783, 136; Williamson 405 1026, 1297, 1323, 487; Katz 389 347, 88 507, 515, 576; Berger New York, 388 41, 64, 87 1873, 1886, 1040; Osborn 385 340, 429, 438, 394; Pugach Dollinger, 365 458, 459, 81 650, 678; On Lee 343 747, 762, 72 967, 976, 96 1270. each prove suspected unconstitutional seizures every respect, below parallel Silverthorne Lumber company 251 385, 40 182, 64 319. 36 case, unlawfully seized papers belonging Silverthornes lumber company, documents returned interim, copied After returning originals, attempted regain possession issuing subpoena duces tecum. When convicted reversing judgments, Holmes, barred reaping fruit forbidden wove into constitutional fabric celebrated maxim essence forbidding acquisition way merely acquired all.' 392, 183. 37 Parnas occupy positions virtually identical company. They desire demonstrate now seeking Silverthorne, violations, mend one's own. here, there, remedy preferred permission render requested information. 38 Unless overruled uprooted decisions it, Nardone 308 338, 340—341, 60 266, 267—268, 307; Benanti 96, 103, 155, 159, 126; Elkins 364 206, 210, 80 1437, 1440, 1669; Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 648, 1684, 1687—1688, 1081; Wong Sun 371 471, 484—485, 83 407, 415—416, 441; Harrison 392 219, 222, 2008, 2010, 1047; Alderman 394 165, 171, 177, 89 961, 965, 968—969, 176, deserve opportunities allegations successful, withhold rewards 'dirty business.' Olmstead 277 470, 48 564, 575, 944 (Holmes, dissenting). 39 Solicitor General propose overruled. Nor he remarkable similarity. analysis stake here fails mention landmark decision.1 precedents cited him detract Silverthorne's vitality.2 Rather, treats decision 'novel extension' protections, leaning heavily observation exclusionary never extended 'provide illegally anyone purpose.' Alderman, 175, 967. aphorism contravened, concludes General, result permitting nondefendant 'suppress' introduced another's someone else. sure, majority ever 'anything deters commanded Amendment.' 174, here. attempting assert vicariously rights others. Here adhere basic principle practices themselves remedies. For, 'where federally invaded, beginning alert adjust relief.' Bell Hood, 327 678, 684, 773, 777, 90 939. Bivens Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 388, 91 1999, 619. 42 movants transform unusual ones. permitted retain exclusive jeopardize important liberties First guarantees, Watkins 354 178, 77 1173, 1273; NAACP Alabama, 357 449, 463, 1163, 1172, 1488; Gibson Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 539, 889, 929; Baird State Arizona, 401 1, 6—7, 702, 706—706, 639; Stolar, 23, 713, 657; Fifth privileges, Hoffman 341 479, 814, 95 1118, testimonial privileges.3 43 authority evidence, jury. Hale Henkel, 201 43, 370, 50 652; supra. doubt, Bivens, supra Monroe Pape, 167, 473, 492, state police concerned), subscriber obtain injunction despite termination remove reach convict parties. 44 today cripple Amendment. movants, concedes prosecutors' targets, submit interrogation, then (unlike prospective defendants) vindicate injuries. More generally, surveillances 'directed primarily collecting maintaining intelligence respect subversive forces, attempt gather prosecutions,' 318—319, 2137, 752, normal threat Weeks 232 383, 341, 58 652, sharply attenuated centers loosed deterrent abuse.4 'uninvited ear' convictions, domestic spying, different supply incentive record coconspirators marshal ringleaders. told '(p)olice tempted during investigations large conspiracy. Once established several individuals involved, deem worthwhile violate member conspiracy (particularly minor member) others.' White Greenspan, Standing Object Search Seizure, 118 U.Pa.L.Rev. 333, 351 (1970) (footnotes omitted). Because 'standing' procured others' privacy, today's help neutralize prosecutorial reward tactics. 45 Today's assumes critical measure for, due clandestine nature eavesdropping, inhibitions officers' abuse, damage actions, reform political process, adverse publicity, avail guarding 46 assists extracting lawless degrades system. For '(n)othing destroy government quickly failure observe laws, worse, disregard charter existence.' 659, 1694, 1081. reason, embraced tendency execute laws country conviction confessions find sanction judgments courts, charged times Constitution.' 344, 652. mentioned earlier, heart decision. Later dissent wiretappers violated Oregon law, citing honor bound law: 'If existing code permit attorneys hand dirty business iniquities succeed.' Brandeis, alone search phrased way: existence imperilled scrupulously. potent, omnipresent teacher. good ill, teaches people example. contagious. lawbreaker, breeds law; invites man unto himself; anarchy.' 485, 575. 47 entrapment Frankfurter, whom Justices Harlan, Brennan, joined, obligation set means' '(p) ublic confidence fair honorable administration justice, ultimately depends transcending value stake.' Sherman 356 369, 380, 819, 825, 848 (concurring result); 307. SelfIncrimination Clause decision, Brennan (joined Marshall myself) fewer words: 'it monstrous aid abet lawbreaking officer.' Harris 232, 649, (dissenting opinion). standards war agencies compound neglect values. some point taint ignoring blunder breed law. overlook infractions diminished independent events. correct, being invited handmaidens intentional5 lawlessness ordering elaborate telephonic prosecutors knowledge 49 summary, rightly decided, rooted continuing equip redress, enjoyed repeated praise decisions, seriously challenged reverse WHITE, refuses Here, claimed excuse demanded involves controlling statute hence 52 asserts affords Reliance placed statute. least warrant required, construing applying 1826 require wiretap unquestionably works complex statute, immediately obvious opinions tellingly demonstrate. 53 produces nevertheless demands full-blown hearing determine order, room accommodation functioning Suppression protracted interruption time, relied liability valid not; event, marginal best. well, left open remand. ante, 61 22. 54 Of officially denies end answer. 55 REHNQUIST, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACKMUN, POWELL join, dissenting. 56 Disposition sorting out admittedly conflicting implications sections principal involved. Court's conclusion, supportable, actual sections, language. utter history, quite sharp break represents historical modus operandi my opinion, wrong. 57 states threatened 'are Ante, 43. framed abstracted refined, divorced particulars two invite erroneous gives. accurate 'assume,' does, overhearing Petitioner contended planned electronically stated affidavit gathered conducted provided 2518.1 shows, similar allegation described position following language: 59 'When attacked 2518, additionally urged inspect applications, orders, tapes secured ..' 838. Thus what neatly stipulated demand roam prosecutor's turn up indicating particular type stage enough recite, governmental bodies. disputed. difficult inquiry posed facts granting petitioners, sweeping discovery prelude full fairly inferred enactment statutes opinion. helpful outset treat briefly background notes, Report codify 'present practice' courts. S.Rep.No.91 617, 148 Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 401, dealt generally power punish appears resulted separately deal recalcitrant Since, states, designed 'codify instructive note litigated connection matters Rule new section. So reported lower reveal, litigation almost exclusively privilege, most issues privilege self-incrimination. respondent adduce equally typical short duration largely devoted arguments counsel agreed statement facts.2 62 Some flavor contemplated gleaned passage Shillitani 364, 1531, 1535, 622 (1966) (citations omitted): 63 'There inherent lawful .. essential appearance consists confined seem invariably summary nature, raised extensive factual development. Even appeals court's behalf material issues, hint either right to, necessity Government. Hooley 209 219 (CA1 1954). 65 was, free expand scope enlarge tried, alter past chose consistently Constitution. strong conclude engraft accorded carte blanche 'applications, tapes, surveillance' Just writing clean slate area hearings, deal, adversary context trial, status summoned body sifting presentment arising antecedent suggest proceeding, dealing role stress unique breadth inquiry. Blair 250 273, 282, 468, 979 (1919), defined vital investigatory function jury: 67 'It inquest, powers inquisition, whose inquiries narrowly propriety forecasts investigation, doubts properly accusation said before, identity offender, precise offense, one, developed jury's labors, beginning. .' 68 Another pointed citizen's process 69 '(I)t recognized giving attendance public duties perform summoned.' 281 471. 70 362, 408, (1956), traced development English concluded Framers Constitution institution existed England '(g)rand jurors selected work hampered rigid procedural evidential rules.' 408. pains limiting adduced authority: indictments inadequate incompetent resulting delay great indeed. merits always insist kind preliminary competency adequacy 363, applied indicted reasoning applies force witness. time-consuming inimical dismiss deliberations. 73 (1958), accord direct derivative materials earlier supporting sustain contentions, quoted describing 74 "(an) institution, laymen unfettered technical rules. Neither nor concept change. merits, strict observance rules bring verdict. Defendants entitled, interminable add assurance trial." 350, 318. 75 seems me beyond cavil awards completely ingrained principles long governed enact relies, certainly announced Instead, response 1040 (1967), 576 undertook draft legislation conditions, prohibiting otherwise. S.Rep. 1097, 2112. ultimate Act. Critical involved 2518(10) (a) Act, pertinent follows: 'Whenever officer, agency, regulatory body, committee, 'Any State, subdivision thereof, move therefrom, that— 79 '(i) intercepted; '(ii) insufficient face; '(iii) conformity approval. 2518(10)(a). very implied conflict separate proscribes number bodies, including Court; legal conspicuously omits solves dilemma succeed establishing surveillance, as, presumptively would. Therefore, says seek, though implication. plausible, juxtaposition contains proscription specify breach proscription; specification sections. remedies; sanctions 2511 2520, whereas accords Alderman-type (Alderman 176 (1969)) remediless degree presumed oversight; remitted complaint leading prosecution. latter efficacious many situations remission nugatory contained 'grand jury' designated forums explainable 'in before' refers forum adduced. inclusion 'department,' 'officer,' 'agency,' 'regulatory body.' exception subpoenas issued departments resolved accomplished requiring agency action obedience subpoena. See, e.g., 79r, Public Utility Holding Company 1935; 78u, Securities Exchange 1934; 35—45, WalshHealey Act; U.S.C.App. 2155, Defense Production 1950; 409(f) (g), Communications 1124, Merchant Marine 1936; 7604, Internal Revenue 1954; 825f(c), Electric Companies 717m(d), Natural Gas 511n, Tobacco Inspection mode discussed Fair Labor Standards Oklahoma Press Publishing Walling, 186, 494, 614 (1946). 85 Thus, focus determined, adduced, juries, departments, officers, agencies, coverage By omitting light itself, resort appropriate. Passages availability proceedings; speak penalize can, doubt. parts address themselves, particularly us. Report, indicates plainly exclusion deliberate: 'This (§ 2518(10)(a)) 2517, above, limits. created envision making itself. Normally, individual. (1966).) rule. context, include future proceeding.' (Emphasis intimation pass suppress, do. inconsistent out, 80, attributes drafters level understaning justified. squarely contradicted 'which individual.' Had presumably well-known language, (1966). 'individual,' 'defendant,' discussion doctrine 60, doubtful Whatever 'hold' careful undoubtedly it. concurring Green 189, 632, 646, 672: scholarship assumptions regarding punishment ill-founded, hardly wipes century half assumptions.' Not limits, re-emphasizes Speaking section, says: must, class suppress. reflects (is intention) press seizure Walder 354, 347 (98 503) (1954). forms integral Along remedies, serve guarantee chapter curtail communications.' (1968). 93 source fortified Report's comment 2510(11) 'aggrieved person' 'intercepted directed.' 91; 2179, states: 94 definition below. (Citations omitted.) 2518(9) proceeding' copy intends thereof. 105; 2195, "Proceeding' hearing. Compare supra).' 97 stood informative correct. superimposed institutions tenable. fit absentmindedness, drastically enlarged avoid testifying, ambiguous whit issue, IV 98 bolster 3504(a) (1), 1970. That 99 101 Assuming, arguendo, show 'claim' act; fact, sufficient disposition petitioners. 102 much guidance seek path reaches 'confirms III.' say deny, am loss how extracts requirements 103 correct deciding errs VII parts, baron Part series reading offered acts, therefore inademissible reliably events occurring years occurred five event likelihood 701, (to accompany 30) A: relating, title, problems 90—351 obtaining warrants investigations.' Admin.News 4026. supplied.) 107 introductory VII, statement: 108 admissibility indirect production (sic) proved. amended mechanical (chapter 119, 18, Code).' 34; 4009. 109 casts puts it: 110 'Lastly, noted prescribing object grant. Giordano 310 (89 297) (1969); 165 176) Nevertheless, defendant. 111 conclusions bill's managers debated. Congressman Poff 112 30, would, first, (1969) requiring, supervisory power, trials, second, 5-year 'statute limitations' inserting 'fruit poisonous tree' cases.' 116 Cong.Rec. 35192. 113 Celler amendments incorporating subcommittee 114 'As law—chapter XVIII, Code.' 35196. 115 amendment floor included: 'TITLE VII—LITIGATION CONCERNING SOURCES OF EVIDENCE 117 'Mr. Chairman, regulate eavesdropping 'Where 198 camera inadmissibility. extent relevancy ex parte modify (citation 119 indicated, disclosures date, mandated, Code, 2518(10)((a)) insufficient, obtained. provides, insofar concerned, discretion inspection portions determines interest justice—see Session 106, will, condeucted Thereafter, control. conjunction integrated governing concerning surveillance.' 35293—35294. 120 weight tenor outweigh, ambiguity cutoff 3504(a)(1). 121 terms, totally background, do, complied importantly, entire thrust reports Houses, humanly reghts defendants, enlargement displeased desired put go disprove taint. Equally defendant, stop inadmissible.' Understanding complete illustrates palpable error fallen figuratively head defendants. V 122 canons traditionally supports expansive novel having respectfully dissent. ancillary information, book, paper, document, record, recording material, refusal, attention, summarily confinement suitable willing give period exceed of— '(2) term extensions, eighteen months.' S.Rep.No. 91—617, Pages 33, 56—57, 148—149 4007; full: (Maratea), 444 499 (en banc). Columbia aligned Third, 1239 (1971), Bacon 446 667 Olsen 912 Russo, 448 369 Reed 1276 Reynolds, 449 1347 Circuits adverted question. Doe (In Marx), 451 466 1971); Popkin), 460 328 1972); Dudley 427 1140 (CA5 1970). rel. Rosado Flood, 139 (CA2 1968); Carter 417 (CA9 1969). infra. tendered constitutionality (d) responsible judiciary play supervising protected: order. major care insure misuse obtained.' 2177. stating '(b)oth proponents opponents extremely unsatisfactory clarify confusion.' 67; 2154. agreed: devise consequences.' 2156. stressed lacking need comprehensive, setting obvious. protections enacted. Guidance officers. national legislation. proposes.' Ibid. added). (b) proceeding(s) prohibited, hearings.' 89; 2177 'Section imposes prohibitions chapter. (I)t Such proper 96; 2184 Congressional evident 90; 2178. "contents,' includes existence, substance, purport, communication.' 2510(8). 'include(s) aspect, parties, substance them, excluded. comprehensive.' 2179. 304 States— determination inadmissibility; '(3) considered '(b) (involving) electronic, mechanical, device (as 2510(5) title) standard promulgated thereto.' 350(4) committees.' addition, passed Senate, unlike 'applies trials States.' references appear phrase 'occurring 1968.' 11, plan dependent form us, differed finally 15, '(Subsection attack ., 3504) unnecessary.' 399 (report Legislation York County Lawyers' 'That (Subsection (1)) adds exists now.' 513 (testimony Lawrence Speiser, representing Civil Liberties Union). concerned 'certain III) (18 2516).' noted, '(c)ivil regardless officer witness.' (1969), acts,' 3504(b), 'acts citizens officials.' 'Under demonstrated illegality (occurring 1968) 'may be' demonstrated. alters ((1969)) acts' An person,' 2510(11); 91, part: Any compared list 2, 'Because ambiguous, 2510(11)) 2515) suppress.' 2185. 2517 106; erroneously decide conversation consider instance. vacated 217. Although, overhearing, affirmance argument, 319, distinguishable. First, yet Tr. Oral Arg. 26. showing, issue. Second, argued inapposite ones later doubt Holmes' relieved testifying purloined papers. Three drawn. 397; 321; 510. authorities rejected privileges Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 378 52, 1594, Piemonte 556, 1720, 1028, dispositions remained privilege. eliminated exchange could, fears contrary, jurisdictions. declining dissolved majority's immunity. True, Goldstein 316 114, 121, 1000, 1004, 1312, injuries inasmuch purported 979, solely believes (which suspects violated) unconstitutional. 'for excused telling knows.' 281, 'Special reasons' grounds, shortly thereafter Silverthorne. Alexander 138 353, 954 (lawyer-client); Blau 340 332, 301, 306 (marital); 345 528, 727 (military aircraft specifications). remark understanding motivation behind security wiretapping. statistical shows nonsecurity seldom criminals. 1969, court-ordered 44,940 convictions 147,780 convictions. Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Schwartz, Costs Benefits Electronic Surveillance ii-v Fortas said, 'is usually calculated, agent state.' 203, 982. represented subjected development, remand 'petitioners' throughout 223, 170 (1950); Rogers 367, 344 (1951); Curcio 118, 1145, 1225 (1957); George, (CA6 October 1969 Jury, 435 (CA7

Classification Label: 0