Court Opinion

ID: 9449954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:29:21.584827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:04.420842
License: Public Domain

HAYS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The protection of Section 605 is available only to the “sender.” Goldstein v. United States, 316 U.S. 114, 62 S.Ct. 1000, 86 L.Ed. 1312 (1942). Therefore the question in the present ease is not, as my colleagues would have it, whether Tane was a party to the conversation in general, but whether he was the “sender” of that part of the conversation which led to the questioned testimony. It seems to me to be quite clear that Tane was not the “sender” in the statutory sense. For instance, he could not have “authorized” the interception of the conversation between Guzik and Goldstein nor the “divulging” or “publication” of that conversation.
After the conclusion of all of the conversation with Goldstein, — the conversation which led to the present prosecution, — Guzik talked further with Tane. I fail to see how the fact that Guzik’s conversation with Tane followed in the same telephone call, rather than in a separate call, can make Tane the “sender” of that part of the call to which he was not a party.
I believe that the decision of the district court unjustifiably extended the applicability of Section 605, beyond what was intended by Congress or approved by the Süpreme Court.
I would reverse.