WIRETAPPING FOR NATIONAL SECURITY WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1954 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 324, Senate Office Building, Senator Herman Welker (presiding). Present: Senators Welker (presiding) and Johnston. The first witness will be Mr. Raymond C. Shindler, private investigator, New York City, N. Y. STATEMENT OF RAYMOND C. SHINDLER Senator WELKER. Mr. Schindler, will you state your name, residence, occupation and profession, please? Mr. SHINDLER. Raymond C. Shindler. I live at Sprat House, in Kerrytown, N. Y. I am a private investigator. My business is at 7 East 44th Street, New York. Senator WELKER. How long have you been so engaged, Mr. Shindler? Mr. SHINDLER. Forty-eight years. Senator WELKER. I take it your investigating has been quite voluminous? Mr. SHINDLER. Yes. Senator WELKER. Mr. Shindler, are you acquainted with the matter that we are hearing today with respect to the proposed wiretap legislation? Mr. SHINDLER. Yes, I am. Senator WELKER. Without boring you, I should like to ask you for your opinion, given in your own language, as to what you think of the proposed wiretap legislation, or any suggestion you might have, Mr. Shindler. Mr. SHINDLER. I think it is absolutely essential that the law-enforcement agencies of this country have the protection that it gives them, the opportunity to solve crimes which otherwise in many instances are not solved. It seems to me that it is most important, when we appoint men like the Attorney General of this country, a man we must have confidence in, he must have ability, and then we tie his hands without allowing him to do certain things that are most essential if he is to prosecute the enemies in this country or the breakers of law, not only sabotage. I go further. I believe that the FBI in my opinion is the greatest investigating bureau in the world—and I have been abroad in every 47683-54--11 157 country. There is nothing comparable to their work; and to tie their hands is not right because the crook, the thief, the saboteur is not waiting. He is going to commit a crime. The FBI are following him, they are checking him, and yet they haven't the right to tap his wire. The very essential thing that would solve the crime and catch the man is not allowed and we have to do it some other way, the hard way. In many cases we miss it completely, so that it is most important. Senator WELKER. Mr. Shindler, is it a fair assumption, without legislation to permit the use of wiretapping, the American people speaking through its Congress, and naturally its executive branch, are merely putting a roadblock in the way of American people to get decent, fair law enforcement? Mr. SHINDLER. We certainly are. Senator WELKER. I am sorry I interrupted you. You may proceed, sir. Mr. SHINDLER. That is all right. I practically covered it. I believe that all law-enforcement officers should have the right. They must decide at a moment's notice. You are shadowing somebody and all of a sudden they are about to commit a crime. By the time you find a judge and got permission to do something, it is too late. That goes for our domestic affairs and anybody. Other countries don't have these restrictions. You can go to practically any country on the face of the earth and get the kind of evidence by wiretap that you can't get here. Senator WELKER. Is it true, Mr. Shindler, that the policy of this matter was established when some 32 of our sovereign States had adopted wiretap legislation, made it admissible within the State? Mr. SHINDLER. Yes. Senator WELKER. And some of those States go as far, not only to the interception of wiretap legislation with respect to felonies, but they even go down to common misdemeanors such as carrying matches in a public forest and things of that nature? Mr. SHINDLER. Yes. Senator WELKER. Now, I think I should acquaint you with the fact, Mr. Shindler, that perhaps most of the opposition in this matter has arisen over the statement, I think, by Justice Holmes that this was dirty business. Now, based upon your years of investigation, law-enforcement work, let me ask: Is the tapping of a wire any dirtier than the boring of a hole for an eavesdropper to listen in on a private conversation, or observing the private happenings of what goes on in a man's sanctuary, his home, his place of business, or anything else? Mr. SHINDLER. It is not. Senator WELKER. Mr. Shindler, I want to inquire of you, because you are a valuable witness with respect to our hearings-you have lived in the great State of New York, and I am advised by my counsel that you enjoy one of the finest reputations there of a private investigator-what has been your observation with respect to the uniformity of orders permitting wiretaps when requested before your many judges who are authorized to grant that order? Mr. SHINDLER. Because my experience in New York City, where the laws are very strict on wiretapping, and where there are restric tions on it, as you well know, that require that you do have permission in certain instances before you can tap it, in certain types of casesis your question to what my opinion is on that? Senator WELKER. I wanted to inquire, if you knew, Mr. Shindler, with respect to whether or not certain judges would grant an order on the same set of facts, the same particulars, while other judges would refuse? Mr. SHINDLER. Yes; that is right. Senator WELKER. In other words then, I take it if the McCarran bill, as we are now considering it here, or the amendment to the original House bill that came over, which would require the order of a Federal judge before a wire could be tapped, is it fair to state there could not be a unanimity of decisions and therefore it would result in a bit of chaos in the immediate necessary tapping of wires that you have related? Mr. SHINDLER. That is right. Senator WELKER. Mr. Shindler, I want to ask you your observations with respect to one of the provisions of the McCarran bill which would preclude the private tapping of wires by private individuals, not law-enforcement officers. Mr. SHINDLER. I am not so much against that because it can be abused a great deal. There are a lot of crooks in my business like there are in many others, and I think that some very definite restrictions should be placed on the private individual. I believe, however, that as we do today, do a certain amount of tapping under certain regulations, that those restrictions should not be curtailed. Senator WELKER. I would like to have you give your opinion as to the difference between wiretapping and that of shadowing, and listening in on your friends who are 20 feet away talking to a man about a certain matter. If they say wiretapping is dirty business, I will ask you if it is not a fact that truthful statements made over the telephone should be competent, the same as truthful statements made by an informer or man who listens in on a conversation? Mr. SHINDLER. There is no question about it. Senator WELKER. In other words, Mr. Shindler, based upon your years of experience, if a man is going to be a liar, he can lie just as well about a wiretap as he can on what he heard or what he swears he heard, or what he swears he saw through the door, the peephole, or the window? Mr. SHINDLER. It is competent in all the courts of the United States for "Roper"-now, "Roper" in my business is a person I had to get acquainted with, for instance, to get certain information for you and to sit and talk and under some pretext get some subject matter. And I get the information and I can go into any court in the land and comment as to what I heard. Or, if I am sitting on the next table and her two people talking I can go to any court and listen to what they said. But if I listen over the phone I haven't the right to do that, get that same information. Senator WELKER. And of course you are familiar with the fundamental rule about admission against interest? Mr. SHINDLER. Yes. Senator WELKER. You have heard the statement if wiretapping is dirty business-as I said before the man who swears to tell the truth can certainly lie about the wiretap as well as he can about what he heard? Mr. SHINDLER. That is right. With all due respect to Justice Holmes, whom you referred to, the court of last resort, after all, is the public of this Nation. And if the facts about this wiretapping were fully laid before all of the people of America, I am sure they would endorse this legislation. But it is just the misinformation or the noninformation, the fact that the public do not know exactly. If they had all the testimony that have here laid before them and took the time to read it, there is no question in my opinion that that would go through overwhelmingly. you Senator WELKER. Mr. Shindler, what does an innocent person have to fear in legislation such as this, which is destined to protect the security of this wonderful country of ours, and perhaps might go so far as to protect fathers and mothers against kidnaping and maybe extortion? What does the innocent person have to fear, I ask you, based upon your years of experience? Mr. SHINDLER. Nothing; absolutely nothing to fear. Senator WELKER. With respect to the wiretapping on kidnaping, and I have not committed myself as to how far I want to go in this sort of legislation, I will ask you if it is not a fact that about the only way in the world that you can intercept a kidnaper who kidnaps for ransom is to tap the wire of the parent who will receive the call from that fiend who is taking the child away? Mr. SHINDLER. Yes, sir; no question about it. Senator WELKER. And if you are deprived of that right, the lawenforcement agencies are handcuffed beyond a doubt; is that correct? Mr. SHINDLER. You are taking away their right arm. Senator WELKER. Mr. Shindler, do you have any idea, or have you made a study with respect to the provisions of House bill, as amended, which also permits the assistant chief of staff, G-2 of the Army General Staff, Department of the Army, Director of Intelligence, the Department of the Air Force, and the Director of Naval Intelligence, Department of the Navy, to do wiretapping? Mr. SHINDLER. The question is have I made a study of it? Senator WELKER. Yes. Mr. SHINDLER. I have made a study of it, but I approve of their having legislation to the effect of doing it. Any law-enforcement department of our Government, any department, regardless. Senator WELKER. I am going to visit with you and go a little further into that. I have all the respect in the world for the armed services, and I know the tremendous problem that they must have. Since this public acclaim has gone out that this is dirty business, it would seem to me that perhaps it would be better to limit this to known, fine law-enforcement agencies, such as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. SHINDLER. There is no question about Hoover's department. When you say this, I am not talking about monitoring every conver sation that comes in, if that is what you mean. I didn't mean that. I am talking about wiretapping in the law enforcement, when the departments that you mentioned are working on something of a possible criminal nature, such as a saboteur, spy, or anything of that sort, these departments have something to do with those types of crimes, also. They originate in many of these departments, and then they get into the FBI or other bureaus. But in those cases I should think they should have the same rights that the FBI should have. I am talking about that type of thing. Senator WELKER. I was wondering whether or not we could not make it possible that they had to clear through the FBI? Mr. SHINDLER. I would be in favor of that; or the Attorney General. Senator WELKER. Of course, as I understand it-and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong-they clear through the FBI who then make these applications to the Attorney General; is that correct? Mr. COLLINS. That is correct. Mr. SHINDLER. I would be in favor of that. Senator WELKER. The question has been repeatedly asked me on committee hearings whether I would be willing to have some past Attorney General, who probably would differ with me in political philosophy, and I have answered this, Mr. Shindler, many times, that regardless of politics-I started as a prosecutor, I have had quite a bit of experience in criminal defense; the last case I tried was a special prosecutor on behalf of the State of Idaho I believe that a man, regardless of political faith, who takes his oath as a lawyer and is Attorney General of the United States, will respect that oath and give us justice. Do you believe in that? Mr. SHINDLER. There is no question in my mind about that at all. Absolutely. Senator WELKER. Counsel, do you have any questions? Mr. COLLINS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shindler, you have been engaged in private investigative work in New York for a number of years, and consequently are familiar with all phases of investigative work involving wiretapping particularly by private individuals? Mr. SHINDLER. Yes. Mr. COLLINS. Could you give us any opinion as to how extensive private wiretapping is today? Mr. SHINDLER. This is only my opinion because there is no way of anybody getting an honest answer, percentagewise, how many people now, how many jobs have we done the same thing. There is no way of knowing. I know it and nobody else would know it. So I don't know about the other fellow, except what I hear. There are hundreds of detective agencies, thousands in this country, and I know the heads of hundreds of them. And I have traveled a great deal so I know, from talking with these men over the years, that they do it generally. I also know from lawyers, and 90 percent or more of my clients are lawyers-I know from their telling me about cases. They say that in court the client's wire must have been tapped because certain ques-tions were asked about which the information could not have been obtained any other way unless someone had been listening in on telephone conversations. So they asked me what they could do about it. It is too late; they have it. There is no way of making them |