Hartley, Earl E., attorney general, State of New Mexico.. 483 Inbau, Fred E., professor of law, Northwestern University Law School, Chicago, Ill 486 Interior Department.. 499 Interstate Commerce Commission_ 499 Justice Department... 372 Labor Department.. 497 Murphy, Michael J., police commissioner, New York City. 344 525 Speiser, Laurence, director, Washington office, American Civil Liber- 428 Wickersham, Gen. C. W., counsel for the Grand Jury Association of 341 348 Wilson, O. W., superintendent of Police Department, Chicago, Ill.. EXHIBITS S. 1086, a bill to amend title 18 of the United States Code to authorize certain communications to be intercepted in compliance with State law, and for other purposes, introduced by Senator Keating, February 28, S. 1221, a bill to regulate eavesdropping and for other purposes, introduced S. 1495, a bill to prohibit wiretapping by persons other than duly authorized law enforcement officers engaged in the investigation or prevention of specified categories of criminal offenses, and for other purposes, intro- duced by Senator Dodd, March 30, 1961... S. 1495, containing revisions suggested by Department of Justice. S. 1822, a bill to amend title 18 of the United States Code to authorize certain communications to be intercepted in compliance with State law, and for other purposes, introduced by Senator Hruska, May 8, 1961... Article, "The Wiretapping-Eavesdropping Problem: A Prosecutor's Affidavit, for wiretap order, submitted to county court, Kings County, Constitution of the State of New York, article 1, section 12, "Security Against Unreasonable Searches, Seizures and Interceptions". Court order, authorizing wiretapping, issued by Judge of Kings County (1) "Proposed Federal Legislation To Legalize Wiretapping Permitted by State Laws," January 10, 1961... (2) "Pending Wiretap Bills," May 3, 1954.. Resolution by the National District Attorneys' Association, March 1961, 144 Statement by Executive Committee of the New York District Attorneys Association, regarding Benanti v. United States, decided by the U.S. (1) Analysis of survey results, by American Law Division, Legislative Transcript of NBC Television program, "The Nation's Future," July 8, 526 WIRETAPPING AND EAVESDROPPING LEGISLATION TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1961 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 357, Old Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Ervin, Carroll, Keating, and Hruska. Also present: William A. Creech, chief counsel and staff director, and Bernard Waters, minority counsel. Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. Two years ago the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights held hearings on wiretapping and eavesdropping. Beginning today, the subcommittee will hold 4 days of hearings on these subjects, on four bills pending before it; they are S. 1086, 1221, 1495, and 1822. (S. 1086, 1221, 1495, and 1822 follow :) [S. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend title 18 of the United States Code to authorize certain communications to be intercepted in compliance with State law, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That chapter 223 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "§ 3501. Evidence of intercepted communications "No law of the United States shall be construed to prohibit the interception, by any law enforcement officer or agency of any State (or any political subdivision thereof) in compliance with the provisions of any statute of such State, of any wire or radio communication, and the divulgence, in any proceeding in any court of such State, of the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of any communication so intercepted if such interception was made after determination by a court of such State that reasonable grounds existed for belief that such interception might disclose evidence of the commission of a crime." SEO. 2. The analysis of chapter 223 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended by inserting immediately below "3500. Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses." the following: "3501. Evidence of intercepted communications." [S. 1221, 87th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To regulate eavesdropping, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That part I of title 18 of the United States Code is amended by adding thereto a new chapter: "Chapter 28-Eavesdropping "Sec. "570. Definitions. "571. Eavesdropping prohibited. "572. Possession of eavesdropping instruments. "573. Ex parte order for eavesdropping. "574. Admissibility of evidence. "575. Exceptions. "576. Duty to report violations. "§ 570. Definitions "As used in this chapter "(1) 'Eavesdropping' refers to a situation in which a person "(a) not a sender or receiver of a telephone or telegraph communication willfully and by means of instrument overhears or records a telephone or telegraph communication, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to do so, without the consent of either a sender or receiver thereof; or "(b) not present during a conversation or discussion willfully and by means of instrument overhears or records such conversation or discussion, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to do so, without the consent of the party to such conversation or discussion; or "(c) who, not a member of a jury, records or listens to by means of instrument the deliberations of a jury or who aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to do so. “(2) 'Person' means any individual, partnership, corporation, or association including the subscriber to any telephone or telegraph service involved but excluding any law enforcement officer while acting lawfully and in his official capacity in the investigation, detection, or prosecution of crime. "(3) Instrument' means any device, contrivance, machine, or apparatus or part thereof designed or used for acoustical detection including but not limited to wiretapping equipment, microphones, detectaphones, spike mikes, dictaphones, radio transmitters, and recorders. § 571. Eavesdropping prohibited "A person who engages in eavesdropping "(1) in the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession of the United States; or "(2) for the purpose of aiding or abetting or perpetrating any Federal offense; or "(3) where the conversation, discussion, or communication overheard or recorded is by wire or radio; or "(4) for the purpose of obtaining information concerning any activity under Federal regulation; or "(5) where the information overheard or recorded is to be transmitted in interstate commerce or outside the United States; or "(6) where the instrument employed to overhear or record the conversation, discussion or communication utilizes or involves facilities in interstate or foreign commerce, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both. § 572. Possession of eavesdropping instruments "A person who has in his possession any eavesdropping instrument under circumstances evincing an intent to use or employ or allow the same to be used or employed for unlawful eavesdropping under section 571 of this chapter, or knowing the same to be so used, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both. § 573. Ex parte order for eavesdropping "(1) An ex parte order for eavesdropping may be issued by any judge of any United States Court of Appeals or a United States District Court or any judge of the Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia or any Commissioner of the United States, upon oath or affirmation of an authorized agent of any Federal law enforcement agency that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of Federal crime may be thus obtained and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications, conversations, or discussions are to be overheard or recorded and the purpose thereof, and, in the case of a telegraphic or telephonic communication identifying the particular telephone number or telegraph line involved. In connection with the issuance of such an order the judge may examine on oath the applicant and any other witness he may produce and shall satisfy himself of the existence of reasonable grounds for the granting of such application. Any such order shall be effective for the time specified therein but not for a period of more than two months unless extended or renewed by the judge who signed and issued the original order upon satisfying himself that such extension or renewal is in the public interest. Any such order together with the papers |