NCJ Number
123005
Journal
Boston College Law Review Volume: 29 Issue: 4-5 Dated: (September 1988) Pages: 901-940
Date Published
1988
Length
40 pages
Annotation
This article analyzes federal law concerning private participant monitoring of wire or oral communications and discusses the circumstances under which courts should suppress evidence obtained unlawfully by the process of private participant monitoring.
Abstract
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 regulates electronic surveillance and limits the conditions permitting private citizens to lawfully intercept wire or oral communications. The legislative histories of specific sections of Title III are discussed in detail, along with relevant case law. Because some sections of Title III appear to be at odds with one another, courts have had problems resolving difficult issues involving private participant monitoring. While protecting privacy is an important goal of Title III, only those with genuine privacy interests should be allowed to use Title III to suppress evidence. When provisions of Title III are innocently violated, the violators should be allowed to present their evidence unless the evidence would harm a privacy right of the nonconsenting party more than the public disclosure of private information would aid in combatting crime. 386 footnotes.