can go and complain, "You have no right to tap my wire as against someone else's." If nothing is found, the wiretap information is still there for the police, possibly the court, and anyone else in the police department to know about it. But he has no right whatever, by analogy to the search and seizure provisions, to go before a court and to establish in an adversary way that there was no right to issue it in the first place. And then usually the warrant procedures would require that, if after the end of 30 or 60 days they wished to renew it for a further period, they bring to the judge what they have and he reads it over to see whether or not they should continue. Well, now, we know as a practical matter that no judge on earth can do his judicial work and read 60 days of wiretapping to decide whether or not it should stay on for a longer period. Senator HRUSKA. Well, that is fine. Now, Mr. McBride, have you heard of any complaints on the part of law enforcement officials in Pennsylvania that this law has impeded their work in any way, or has been a detriment to them rather than otherwise? Mr. MCBRIDE. Yes, I have. The law enforcement officials, the police, feel that any attempt to stifle wiretapping impedes them in the detection and punishment of crime. And I think to some extent that complaint is justified. Senator HRUSKA. But that has to be balanced, as you say, against these other considerations of larger public policy and the impact on society as a whole. Is that your position? Mr. MCBRIDE. Yes. Their suggestion is they should be able to tap wires in gambling, in so-called numbers cases, any kind of a case that the policeman decides that he wants to tap. They do not restrict their position to kidnaping or treason or something like that. They put it "anything that endangers life or the public welfare or public safety." Now, every criminal statute on the books is detrimental to the public welfare. If it weren't detrimental to the public welfare, it would not be on the books, it would not be a proper criminal statute. So I think it is true that the police departments do protest against it, and to an extent their complaint may be justified. Senator HRUSKA. How wide are these protests? How widely do you find them voiced on the part of law enforcement officers? Mr. MCBRIDE. I find them most widely voiced in the city of Philadelphia, where protests have been made against the Pennsylvania statute and they say that it has interfered directly with their work. One of the protests was from a-not even from a policeman, but after there had been a raid upon a home in Philadelphia and it turned out to be the home of two elderly ladies who could not possibly ever be suspected of being in the gambling racket. This high public official said that, had they been permitted to wiretap, they would not have made this mistake; had they been able to listen to these elderly ladies, they would have known that they were decent people. And then also the claim is made that juvenile delinquency is on the increase because they cannot tap wires. It is obvious that they do not go around tapping juvenile wires. Senator HRUSKA. Now, Mr. McBride, in that connection, to your knowledge has there been any increase in the crime rate in Pennsylvania resulting from the passage of this law? Mr. MCBRIDE. I cannot say one way or the other. There has been a definite increase in crime in Pennsylvania since the law passed. I understand that there has been a definite increase in crime in New York and in other States throughout the Union. And I doubt very much that the increase elsewhere at least can be imputed to the Pennsylvania Antiwiretapping Act. Senator HRUSKA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. McBride. This has been very enlightening and it will serve as a good start for the series of witnesses which we will have day after tomorrow along this same line. Mr. Slayman, have you any other questions of Mr. McBride? Senator HRUSKA. Thank you again, Mr. McBride; and you, too, Mr. Levin. We are happy to have had you here. We are sorry we could not call upon you for your contribution in this, but perhaps we will have further occasion to do so. Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask your permission to print separately, as an appendix I to these hearings, material which I have listed here [indicating], Background Materials on Wiretapping, Eavesdropping, and the Bill of Rights, which would be printed now and be immediately available for use in the committee. Senator HRUSKA. And later on appended to the hearing? Mr. SLAYMAN. Yes. If we can print this immediately, we would not have to wait for this transcript to be corrected. Senator HRUSKA. Very well, the request is granted and you may proceed accordingly. (The table of contents of the Background Materials on Wiretapping, Eavesdropping, and the Bill of Rights follows:) BACKGROUND MATERIALS ON WIRETAPPING, EAVESDROPPING, AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONTENTS Part I. Bill of Rights. Part II. Statutes: Section A. Federal statutes: 1. Section 501, title 47, United States Code. Section B. State statutes: 1. Memorandum on State wiretapping laws. Part III. Court decisions: Section A. Compilation of court decisions relating to wiretapping. Section B. List of court decisions dealing with section 605, title 47, United States Code. Section C. Text of opinions in Supreme Court cases dealing with wiretapping: 1. Olmstead v. United States. 8. Schwartz v. State of Texas. Section D. Text of opinions in selected group of related Supreme Court cases: 1. Boyd v. United States. 2. Weeks v. United States. 5. Irvine v. California. 6. Rea v. United States. Part IV. Foreign law: Section A. Great Britain and the British Commonwealth of Nations. Section B. Various European countries. Section B. Articles in legal periodicals. Senator HRUSKA. The meeting stands in recess. We will have further proceedings on Thursday, May 22, at the set time. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the hearing recessed until Thursday, May 22, 1958.) X |