ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE FBI
Because of the well-recognized intrusive nature of electronic surveillance in the United States, in particular wiretaps and room installations—not to mention the Fourth Amendment implications because of the Government’s use of these devices—in 1968, Congress “codified” the practice and passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Collectively known as Title III [because that’s the section where the electronic surveillance provisions can be found], the statute gives law enforcement the authority to seek court authorized wiretaps and install listening devices.
Historically, while some federal law enforcement agents used wiretaps to collect evidence, the U.S. Department of Justice didn’t always agree with the practice. In 1924, Attorney General [AG] Harlan Fiske Stone refused to allow agents to use the technique stating he thought the practice was “unethical.” But not everyone shared Stone’s disdain. Agents at the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Prohibition routinely used wiretap evidence to nab bootleggers. While constitutionalists claimed wiretap evidence violated Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections, the Supreme Court was not sympathetic. In Olmstead v. United States [277 U.S. 438 (1928)], the High Court ruled wiretap evidence was admissible stating conversations were voluntary, not forced, and further intercepts were not considered a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
But the controversy surrounding wiretap evidence did not end until the Bureau of Prohibition was transferred to the Department of Justice—creating an appearance problem for the Attorney General. But because gang violence was on the increase, in 1931, Attorney General William B. Mitchell decided the technique could be used, but only in special limited circumstances. He said agents could collect wiretap evidence, but only if an appropriate Assistant Attorney General approved the measure.
Title III provisions provide law enforcement with explicit directives permitting agents to seek a court order authorizing the intercepts. In seeking an application, agents must generally identify the crime problem and explain investigative steps taken and exhausted to solve the problem. They must also identify suspects and locations where they expect to make the intercepts. In the event authorities have information suggesting a suspect might change facilities, agents can seek a “roving” wire. The most restrictive portion of the statute mandates all requests for an intercept must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice before an application can be made to an appropriate court seeking an order. For relevant provisions, interested parties should review Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2510 thru 2522. If you’re looking for an investigator with a background using recorded conversations as evidence, he suggests you make contact with him so that you can discuss your case.
[Note: Information herein was taken from the Electronic Surveillance Manual prepared by the Office of Enforcement Operations, U.S. Department of Justice and a publication titled, “Electronic Surveillance and Civil Liberties,” prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment.]
