NCJ Number
11221
Journal
American Criminal Law Review Volume: 11 Issue: 3 Dated: (SPRING 1973) Pages: 639-694
Date Published
1973
Length
56 pages
Annotation
REVIEW OF TITLE III OF THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968 AND THE THREE MAJOR SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON WIRETAPPING.
Abstract
WHILE THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT YET RULED ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF TITLE III, IT HAS LAID DOWN SOME STANDARDS FOR PERMISSIBLE INVASIONS OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE. THESE INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFICATION OF THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED, JUDICIAL REVIEW ESTABLISHING PROBABLE CAUSE, AND SET DURATION FOR THE SEARCH. ALTHOUGH MANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS LAID OUT IN THE BERGER, KATZ AND OSBORN CASES HAVE SEEMINGLY BEEN REFLECTED IN THE DRAFTING OF TITLE III, SUFFICIENT VALID CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY MANY LEGAL COMMENTATORS AND HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN UNITED STATES V. WHITAKER TO GIVE SUPPORT TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ACT MAY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WHETHER THE DISCRETION LEFT TO THE EXECUTING OFFICERS IS TOO EXTENSIVE, WHETHER MORE POSITIVE JUDICIAL CONTROL SHOULD BE MANDATED, WHETHER 30-DAY TIME LIMITS ARE TOO IMPRECISE, AND WHETHER THIRD PARTIES TO EAVESDROPPED CONVERSATIONS ARE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED ARE BUT A FEW OF THE QUESTIONS WHICH MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE TITLE III OF THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968 IS CLEARLY DETERMINED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED