Court Opinion

ID: 9463844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:17:34.295352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:18.329943
License: Public Domain

MERRILL, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in part II of Judge Renfrew’s opinion and agree with the conclusion of part I of that opinion and part II of Judge Hufstedler’s concurring opinion. I disagree with the result they reach and with their conclusion that § 605 does not prohibit the divulgence of information obtained by means of a pen register. Accepting at face value the language of that section, it clearly does prohibit such divulgences. Subject to certain exceptions the prohibition, as applied to persons engaged in forwarding communications, is complete and absolute: “[N]o person * * * shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or- meaning” of communications.
It is important to bear in mind that while Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act and § 605 both strive to protect interests of privacy and confidentiality, their objectives are quite different. Title III is concerned with eavesdropping — the obtaining of private information by unjustified intrusion into private areas. It seeks to accomplish its objective by regulating the interception of communications. The specific interest addressed by § 605 is the integrity of communications systems and companies engaged in forwarding communications. The section deals with situations in which the overhearing of private matters and the obtaining of information respecting the communications of others may be entirely proper and even unavoidable. It does not seek to protect against the obtaining of information, but against the divulging of information.
Accordingly, I quite agree with Judge Renfrew and Judge Hufstedler that § 605 does not prohibit or regulate the use of pen registers. It does not prohibit or regulate any form of interception. I part company with them when they reason from this that § 605 does not (despite its forthright language) prohibit the divulgence of information obtained by means of a pen register. Their result would prohibit those in the designated class of telephone company employees from divulging information obtained by any other means, while leaving them entirely free to divulge to the next-door neighbor or to the world at large any information obtained by means of a pen register.
Judge Renfrew’s conclusion that § 605 does not apply to pen registers is based on two propositions: (1) that the first clause of old § 605 before the 1968 amendment did not proscribe the divulgence of information obtained from a pen register; and (2) that on amendment in 1968 the language of the first clause (retained in the first sentence of the new § 605) carried with it its limited meaning. I cannot agree with either proposition.
Judge Renfrew’s proposition 1 reasons that since the second clause of old § 605 was specifically addressed to “interceptions” (and the term “interceptions” in old § 605 included the use of pen registers), the only interpretation of the first clause that would give it independent significance is one that excludes interceptions. Judge Renfrew thus concludes that old clause 1 did not cover the divulgence of information obtained by means of interception including pen registers.
I do not find this construction of old clause 1 necessary if that clause is to have independent significance. The scope and breadth of its language proscribed all disclosures (by certain persons with certain exceptions) of the existence and content of communications, whether that information was obtained by interception or other *268means. Clause 1 did overlap clause 2. Where the persons addressed by the first clause — those who receive, transmit, or assist the reception or transmission of communications — obtained information by means other than interception, then they could, with or without the sender’s authorization, divulge the information to certain persons or under certain circumstances.1 But where the persons addressed by the first clause obtained information by interception, then the second clause served in the nature of a proviso to add proscriptions to those imposed by the first clause — to proscribe any divulgence of information unless authorized by the sender.
The result is that under old § 605 divul-gence of information obtained by use of a pen register was doubly proscribed: by both the first and second clauses; in each case, however, with differing conditions and exceptions. This might have amounted to a degree of redundancy, but I do not find that so objectionable as to justify a strained reading of clause l’s straightforward and comprehensive language.
Assuming, however, that old clause 1 is to be read as being inapplicable to pen registers or other interceptions, I cannot agree with Judge Renfrew’s proposition 2: that the language of clause 1, which became the first sentence of new § 605, continued to retain that meaning following amendment. As noted by Judge Renfrew, legislative history discloses that new § 605 “is not intended merely to be a re-enactment of [the old § 605]. The [new] provision is intended as a substitute.” S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 107, reprinted in [1968] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2112, 2196. Since the new § 605 is not a re-enactment of the old, in our construction of the new we start afresh, unhampered by restrictions that may have attached to the old for reasons other than its language, unless those reasons apply with equal force to the new. With clause 2 stricken from § 605 by amendment the only reason for giving the language of clause 1 a narrow reading is gone. We need no longer struggle to give it some significance independent of that which is no longer there. There is now no occasion for construing it otherwise than in light of what it actually says.
None of the cases on which Judge Ren-frew relies supports the proposition that § 605 permits disclosure of information obtained by means of a pen register. Not one of the cases so holds. Instead, they deal with the legality of the use of the device.2
Judge Renfrew also cites a Senate Report that states “[t]he regulation of the interception of wire or oral communications in the future is to be governed by [Title. III].” S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in [1968] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. *269News 2112, 2196. But as part II of Judge Renfrew’s opinion points out, Title III uses the term “interception” specifically to refer to the aural acquisition of the contents of communications. When the Senate Report says that “interceptions” will be regulated by Title III, it must be referring to the special meaning given that term in Title III itself.
Judge Hufstedler notes that under Bubis v. United States, 384 F.2d 643 (9th Cir. 1967), an exception to the proscription against interception is recognized to permit a telephone company to investigate fraudulent circumvention of its billing procedures. Since Bubis speaks in terms of protection of the integrity of communications systems (384 F.2d at 646) she reasons that included within this exception should be action taken to protect customers from the intrusion of obscene telephone calls. I cannot agree.
When § 605 was amended in 1968 Congress preserved (in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a)(i)) the judicially created exception for telephone company investigations of fraud against its property. United States v. Clegg, 509 F.2d 605, 613 (5th Cir. 1975). Congress did not further encourage telephone companies to conduct self-authorized criminal investigations.3 To expand this limited exception to § 605 to include investigations of misuse of company facilities by obscene telephone calls would invite including investigations of misuse by extortion, threat or other crimes directed against a telephone subscriber. The statutory exception should not, in my view, be broadened to include areas other than those in which the company is acting in self-defense. The privacy interest that § 605 is designed to protect is the privacy of the communication and not the privacy of the listener upon whom an unwelcome communication has intruded.
Nor can I agree with the district court (see note 2 of Judge Renfrew’s opinion) that the divulgences here were not violations of § 605 under the holdings of Bubis v. United States, supra, and United States v. Baxter, 492 F.2d 150, 165-66 (9th Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 416 U.S. 940, 94 S.Ct. 1945, 40 L.Ed.2d 292 (1974). Both cases held that § 605 did not apply since the persons who there did the divulging in question were not engaged in “receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio.” In Bubis, the person divulging was a special agent of a telephone company in charge of “investigation of the manufacture, use and sale in the Los Angeles area of an instrument and device known as a multifrequency generator.” 384 F.2d at 646. Similarly in Baxter, the evidence did not indicate that the divulgence of information obtained from telephone company toll and billing records was done by any of the persons addressed by clause 1. I do not question Bubis or Baxter, but I see no reason to extend their holdings beyond their facts.4 Here, one of those divulging was a company foreman in charge of maintenance and repair of equipment and thus regularly engaged in assisting in the transmitting and receiving of communications. Since his duties involved the testing of equipment he could be said to fall within the class of employees likely to overhear communications in the course of their em*270ployment. The fact that he may at the moment have been assigned to assist special security agents does not serve to remove him from the class of employees subject to the proscription of § 605.
I might add that my result would not unduly hamper police investigation by eliminating the possibility of telephone company cooperation. The only impediment faced by the police is that they may not secure information from the company without order or subpoena.
For these reasons I would hold that § 605 does apply to information obtained by means of a pen register. I would reverse summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

. I think note should be taken of the extraordinarily inept draftsmanship of § 605. The “exceptions” are not stated as exceptions at all. Quite to the contrary, the section as drawn explicitly forbids divulgence to the very persons who, one would reasonably suppose, should have the information divulged to them. When the section was amended in 1968, thirty-four years after this language was first used, the sense (or nonsense) of the original language was meticulously preserved, word for word, and the fact that it was intended to mean exactly what it said is strongly suggested by the fact that the numerals (1) through (6) were added to the original language to replace the word “or,” thus lending emphasis to the point that (2) through (6) were to serve the same function as (1). Nevertheless, United States v. Finn, 502 F.2d 938, 942-43 (7th Cir. 1974), sensibly held that this apparently deliberate perpetuation of forthright language should not preclude the courts from striving to write sense into the section by recognizing that what is stated as a prohibition was intended to be a statement of an exception to the prohibition. All other courts faced with the problem seem tacitly to have agreed with that result.

. In United States in re Order Authorizing Use of a Pen Register, 538 F.2d 956, 958 (2d Cir. 1976), cert, granted, 429 U.S. 1072, 97 S.Ct. 807, 50 L.Ed.2d 789 (1977), the court held that a court order authorizing use of a pen register was not forbidden by § 605. In United States v. Falcone, 505 F.2d 478, 482 (3d Cir. 1974), cert, denied, 420 U.S. 955, 95 S.Ct. 1338, 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975), the precise holding was that § 605 does not prohibit the use of pen registers. The same was true of United States v. Brick, 502 F.2d 219, 223 (8th Cir. 1974), and Korman v. United States, 486 F.2d 926, 931-32 (7th Cir. 1973).

. Congress intended “to reflect existing law.” S.Rep.No.1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in [1968] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 2112, 2182. The Senate Report’s example of “existing law” was United States v. Beckley, 259 F.Supp. 567 (N.D.Ga.1965) which, like Bubis, involved a telephone company investigation of persons who were attempting to defraud the company with respect to long distance calls.
Since the amendment of § 605, courts have not chosen to broaden this narrowly intended exception. See, e. g., United States v. Goldstein, 532 F.2d 1305, 1311 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 429 U.S. 960, 97 S.Ct. 384, 50 L.Ed.2d 327 (1976); United States v. Glanzer, 521 F.2d 11, 12 (9th Cir. 1975).

. The precise holding of Bubis was that the information sought to be suppressed should have been suppressed as the result of interception and divulgence in violation of clause 2 of old § 605. The portion of the opinion holding that the divulger did not fall within the class specified in clause 1 was not in response to a claim that the divulgence violated that clause. Instead, it was in response to the appellant’s claim that he was, under that clause, authorized to divulge in response to a subpoena.