skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 50674 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: WIRETAPPING AND ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE - CAN JUDICIAL CONTROL ADEQUATELY PROTECT FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS? (FROM INSTITUTE OF CONTEMPORARY CORRECTIONS AND THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, PROCEEDINGS, 1977 - SEE NCJ-50660)
Author(s): M E WRIGHT
Corporate Author: Sam Houston State University
Criminal Justice Ctr
United States of America
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 5
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
Sam Houston State University
Huntsville, TX 77340
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THE NATURE OF EXISTING JUDICIAL CONTROL OVER WIRETAPPING AND ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IS INDICATED, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TO CONTROL ITS OWN INVESTIGATIVE BEHAVIOR IN THIS AREA IS DISCUSSED.
Abstract: 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)
Index Term(s): Electronic surveillance; Judicial decisions; Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act; Police due process training; Police responsibilities; Right of privacy
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=50674

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.