The framers of the Federal wiretap statute did not explicitly refer to video surveillance, but they clearly considered oral interceptions through electronic surveillance to be extremely intrusive. Since 1980, courts have determined that requirements related to video surveillance go beyond the traditional Fourth Amendment warrant requirements and have fashioned additional requirements for both acquiring and executing a search warrant authorizing television-assisted surveillance. Thus, police officers should state probable cause in the application for a warrant and should set forth particular descriptions of the people, places, and activities to be observed. They should also articulate the necessity for video surveillance rather than less intrusive techniques, restrict the length of the surveillance order, and minimize observations of nonpertinent activity. Furthermore, they should properly preserve and store videotapes and seek court approval for nonconsensual entry and installation. If video surveillance is established in an emergency, they should obtain judicial approval within a reasonable time. 52 footnotes.