OLMSTEAD VS. UNITED STATES, HEARD IN 1927, IS CITED AS THE FIRST TELEPHONE WIRETAPPING CASE, AND IT DETERMINED THAT WIRETAPPING INFRINGED NEITHER FOURTH NOR FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, SINCE NO PHYSICAL SEARCH OR SEIZURE WAS INVOLVED. THE IDEA THAT THERE WOULD BE NO VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN THE INTERCEPTION OF CONVERSATIONS UNLESS A PHYSICAL TRESPASS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE SUBJECT WERE INVOLVED WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT 10 YEARS AGO IN KATZ VS. UNITED STATES, WHERE THE COURT RULED THAT A VIOLATION OF A PRIVACY REASONABLY EXPECTED BY A CITIZEN IS SYNONYMOUS WITH PHYSICAL TRESPASS AND THUS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, TITLE III OF THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968 PRESCRIBED PRECISE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN ISSUING A COURT ORDER PERMITTING THE USE OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND WIRETAPPING. THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING SUCH AN ORDER ARE DESCRIBED. IT IS BELIEVED THAT JUDICIAL CONTROL OVER WIRETAPPING AND ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES IS SUFFICIENTLY DETAILED THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL KNOW WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM WITH RESPECT TO FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS. IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SUPERVISORY POLICE PERSONNEL TO TRAIN THOSE UNDER THEIR CONTROL TO RESPECT AND ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER ABUSES BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THIS REGARD CAN ONLY LEAD TO MORE STRINGENT JUDICIAL CONTROL. (RCB)