Court Opinion

ID: 9461771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:24:23.997055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:15.399136
License: Public Domain

Circuit Judge McGOWAN,
concurring in the judgment of the court only on statutory grounds, concluded that in order to escape the statute’s general pro*603hibition of warrantless electronic surveillance, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1) (1970), the instant wiretaps must fall within the statutory exemption for “measures . necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power.” Id. § 2511 (3). Since, in Judge McGowan’s view, such measures do not include surveillances directed, as these were, at citizens having no affinity with a foreign power whose hostile acts are feared, he would hold the instant surveillances illegal on that ground alone, without reference to the Constitution.
Nathan Lewin, Washington, D. C., with whom Herbert J. Miller, Jr., and Martin D. Minsker, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants.
Edward S. Christenbury, Atty., Dept, of Justice, with whom Henry E. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Kevin T. Maroney, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., were on the brief, for appellees.
Circuit Judge ROBB concurs in the judgment of the court on statutory grounds without reaching the constitutional questions.