To date, the courts have been consistent in holding that cordless telephone conversations lie outside the protection of the fourteenth amendment and its exclusionary rule; therefore, unauthorized recordings of such conversations can indiscriminately be admitted as evidence in trial proceedings. In addition, the interception of cordless telephone communications do not fall under the purview of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act which protects wire communications and oral communications against warrantless electronic surveillance. This article reviews the congressional and judicial history of Title III and the fourth amendment as they relate to electronic surveillance. The author discusses recent limitations placed on Title III's definitions and how this affects the rights of cordless telephone users. The article examines different perspectives on what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy and recommends solutions for promoting consistency in applying constitutional protection to telephone communications. 56 notes