Wiretaps ARE seizures under the 4th Amendment and are governed by the 4th Amendment and Title III (Crime Control Act) because people have legitimate expectations of privacy in their conversations (depending on circumstances)

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the  place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Wiretapping and electronic surveillance
Title III Crime Control Act - sets forth the procedures for obtaining judicial authorization for intercepting wire or oral communication

Suppression of evidence gained via wire-tapping will only take place where
1) a particular provision of Title III was directly violated, and
2) that provision substantially implements the congressional intent to restrict electronic surveill or plays a central role in statutory scheme

In other words, just because a specific provision of Title III was violated, does not mean the wiretap evidence will be suppressed. The violation has to substantial (as opposed to clerical) -- see below

no electronic surveillance permitted w/out a properly authorized application (like affidavit for search warrant) except in emergency situations (nat'l security threat, organized crime, immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury). but domestic security does not fall under the nat'l security exception.

Requirements of the Application
1) Full and complete statement of circumstances
2) What facility wiretapped
3) Identity of person to be tapped, if known
4) Probable cause
5) Full and complete explanation of why other less drastic investigative alternatives have been tried and failed or would fail or are too difficult
6) Tell judge if this thing tapped before and what happened

crime must be punishable by 1 year or more (murder, kidnaping, etc) - prob cause to believe that the individ whose convers/phone will be tapped will commit one or these crimes and it has to specify the crime

has to be executed as soon as possible and minimize the interception of private conversation that are not related to the crime
30 day max on wiretapping OR when obtain objective - whichever comes first - then terminate
there has to be an inventory served on the person tapped after tap completed unless prosec shows good cause to judge
Title III allows cont'd surveillance for up to 30 days on 1 showing of prob cause and unlimited extensions of 30 day periods

When evidence will/won't be suppressed turns on
Substantive            vs            Clerical      violation of Title III
if person who                             if person who applied is actually authorized
applies not authorized                 but misidentified on the order (clerical violation)

Minimization agents have a duty to minimize non-pertinent calls and ct order must contain this provision - based on officer's actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time. subjective intent alone does not make it illegal.
As long as police are acting reasonably, it does not matter if they make no good faith effort to comply.
Fischman objectively reasonable may not be adequate for continuous interceptions, need more subjective good faith

Covert Entry to plant/remove bug is okay!
What if agent sneaks in to plant bug and sees cocaine on table? - plain view doctrine if cop lawfully on the premises, but defendant will say cop lawfully on the premises in a very limited scope. (see search and seizure for plain view doctrine)

Secret Agents
one party to the conversation is consenting and wearing the wire - it is okay to use law enf agents who are wired for sound. NOT a search, either recorded or simult. transm to agents outside. Defendant invited person in and told him - willfully assume risk person might betray him. In other words, keep your big mouth shut *grin*
Lopez case - no eavesdropping if agent is a party to the conversation - i.e., if one party to the conversation gives knows/consents, then no eavesdropping and then no warrant for "wiretapping" needed. (But if a person's right to counsel under the 6th amendment has attached, then a secret agent cannot be used to gain a "confession" from a defendant).

Back to Legal Clinic Main Page