THE DEFENDANTS IN THE FINAZZO AND SANTORA CASES WERE CHARGED WITH A FEDERAL OFFENSE ON THE BASIS OF ORAL CONVERSATIONS INTERCEPTED BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI). IN EACH CASE A LISTENING DEVICE WAS PLANTED IN THE DEFENDANT'S BUSINESS OFFICE AFTER THE FBI AUTHORIZATION FROM A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PURSUANT TO TITLE III. THE SANTORA ORDER AUTHORIZED A BREAK-IN; THE FINAZZO ORDER DID NOT. THE FACT THAT BOTH APPEAL COURTS REFUSED TO ALLOW THE EVIDENCE THUS OBTAINED REFLECTS DEEP-SEATED RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF ANY LAW PERMITTING UNANNOUNCED INTRUSIONS BY POLICE INTO PRIVATE HOMES AND OFFICES FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING LISTENING DEVICES. THE FACT THAT TITLE III DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF BREAK-INS MEANS THAT CONGRESS MAY HAVE MEANT TO PROHIBIT SUCH ACTIVITIES BY OMITTING THEM FROM AN OTHERWISE COMPREHENSIVE STATUTE, ALLOW THEM BY NOT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITING THEM, OR CONGRESS MAY HAVE OVERLOOKED THE MATTER. UNTIL THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH CLARIFIES ITS INTENT IN THIS MATTER, THE JUDICIARY CANNOT PROPERLY FULFILL ITS REVIEWING ROLE. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT, JUDGES MUST CONTINUE TO INTERPRET CASES SUCH AS FINAZZO AND SANTORA IN LIGHT OF THE TRADITIONAL COMMON LAW BELIEF THAT A MAN'S HOME OR OFFICE SHOULD BE PRESERVED FROM UNREASONABLE AND UNANNOUNCED ENTRY. A NUMBER OF OTHER CASES RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF EAVESDROPPING EVIDENCE ARE BRIEFLY REVIEWED. EXTENSIVE FOOTNOTES CONTAIN CASE CITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. (GLR)