longing to another, and wilfully reads, takes or copies any message, communication or report intended for another passing over any such telegraph or telephone line, wire or cable in this state; or who wilfully prevents, obstructs or delays, by any means or contrivance whatsoever, the sending, transmission, conveyance or delivery in this state of any message, communication or report by or through any telegraph or telephone line, wire or cable; or who uses any apparatus to unlawfully do, or cause to be done, any of the acts hereinbefore mentioned or who aids, agrees with, employs or conspires with, any person to unlawfully do or permit or cause to be done, any of the acts hereinbefore mentioned, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars, nor more than one thousand dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court. Very truly yours, DUKE W. DUNBAR, Attorney General. CONNECTICUT STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Hartford, April 25, 1961. DEAR SIR: We have before us your letter of April 13, 1961, wherein you request information re wiretapping legislation. Please find enclosed copy of our wiretapping statute, section 53-140, General Statutes of Connecticut, Revision of 1958,' and copies of four bills on this subject presently before our legislature. As the attorney general's office does not have criminal jurisdiction in Connecticut, we do not venture an opinion as to the desirability or need for Federal legislation in this area. Very truly yours, ALBERT L. COLES, Attorney General. DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEAR MR. ERVIN: We have your letter of April 13, 1961, concerning your subcommittee's examination of the problem raised by wiretapping to determine to what extent Federal legislation on wiretapping may be desirable or practical. This State has adopted the following statute on wiretapping: "Whoever taps or makes connection with any telegraph or telephone line, wire, cable, or instrument belonging to a telegraph or telephone company; or "Whoever reads, takes copy, makes use of, discloses, publishes or testifies concerning, any dispatch or message, communication or report intended for another passing over such telegraph or telephone line, wire, or cable, in this State: or, whoever aids, employs or conspires with any person unlawfully to do, or permit or cause to be done, any of the acts hereinbefore mentioned— "Shall, for each such offense, be fined not less than $500 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. "Nothing in this section shall apply to an employee or authorized agent of a telegraph or telephone company." 11 Del. C., § 757, as amended. This office has informally interpreted the above statute to apply to members of the various police departments of this State and to this office. Consequently, wiretapping has not been used in this State with official sanction. Our predecessors in this office submitted a wiretapping statute to the State legislature 1 Reprinted in Senate Judiciary Committee print, "State Statutes on Wiretapping," compiled by the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, 87th Cong., 1st sess. which failed of passage. When we took office we did not resubmit our predecessor's bill or one of our own. We feel that a properly drawn bill on wiretapping would be of great help in the prosecution of gambling cases. However, because any wiretapping bill is subject to abuses, we do not believe Federal or State legislation on the subject is desirable. We should add that our views are not shared by all of the law enforcement officials of this State. If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call upon us. Sincerely, FLORIDA CLEMENT C. WOOD. STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEAR MR. ERVIN: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 13, 1961, with regard to wiretapping and eavesdropping. Florida law, constitution or statute, does not specifically condemn eavesdropping as such, that is to say that while a certain activity (admittedly eavesdropping) might be condemned by one of our appellate courts for any one of several reasons, the mere fact that it might be eavesdropping would not itself be sufficient as the basis for condemnation. Section 822.10, Florida Statutes,' a tearsheet copy of which is enclosed, is specifically designed to afford a measure of protection to the utility companies rather than the protection of the privacy of the general citizenry. The only decisions touching on section 822.10, supra, are the cases of Perez v. State, 81 So. 2d 201; Williams v. State, 109 So. 2d 379; Griffith v. State, 111 So. 2d 282; and Chacon v. State, 102 So. 2d 578. In one degree or another the aforesaid cases constitute the only existing judicial pronouncements anent the subject in Flordia. At this writing I have no particular comments, specific or otherwise, on the need for any Federal legislation in this particular area. Trusting I have been of some service to you, I am. Sincerely, RICHARD W. ERVIN, Attorney General. P.S.-I would not want to set up by Federal law any further protection for gamblers in the communication of racetrack results. GEORGIA THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW, DEAR SIR: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 13, 1961, the fourth paragraph of which reads as follows: "We are writing to ask whether you as State attorney general, would submit a brief description of your State law covering (1) wiretapping and (2) eavesdropping. Furthermore, the subcommittee would appreciate having your comments on the desirability or need, if any, for Federal legislation in this area, as well as any specific recommendations you might care to make." The State of Georgia has no statute upon the questions as to (1) wiretapping, or (2) eavesdropping. I would prefer not to make any comments on the desirability or need for Federal legislation upon the questions, nor do I at this time have any recommendations. Sincerely, EUGENE COOK, The Attorney General, By J. R. PARHAM, Assistant Attorney General. 2 Reprinted at pp. 23-24, "State Statutes on Wiretapping." 85952 O-62-36 HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Honolulu, June 27, 1961. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: My sincere apologies for not having replied earlier to your letter of April 13, requesting a summary of our State laws on wiretapping and eavesdropping. At that time, our State legislature was having its first general session and we were in the midst of reorganization and legislative problems. In checking our local law, I find wiretapping and eavesdropping problems have been very minor and have not been of sufficient consequence to require as yet litigation within Hawaiian courts. There has not been any legislation on either wiretapping or eavesdropping in Hawaii. As I am a member of the Criminal Law Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General, my views and comments on the matter of wiretapping and eavesdropping and related subjects, including the advisability of the establishment of a National Advisement Committee on Interstate Crime, will be reflected in the report submitted by that committee to your body. Very truly yours, SHIRO KASHIWA, Attorney General. ILLINOIS STATE OF ILLINOIS, Springfield, May 18, 1961. DEAR SIR: I enclose herewith a copy of the statutes of Illinois relating to eavesdropping and wiretapping in accordance with your request of April 13, 1961. I regret the delay in replying but through inadvertence your letter was mislaid. Yours very truly, WILLIAM G. CLARK, Attorney General. INDIANA STATE OF INDIANA, Indianapolis, April 21, 1961. MY DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 13, 1961, requesting information concerning existing Indiana law with reference to (1) wiretapping, and (2) eavesdropping. The only statutory enactment currently in existence with reference to wiretapping is the acts of 1905, chapter 169, section 630, as found in Burns' “Indiana Statutes" (1956 Repl.), section 10-4901, which reads as follows: "Whoever, being an operator, clerk, servant, messenger, or employee of any telegraph company or telephone company, discloses the contents of any dispatch or message sent or received from any office of such company, or any conversation or communication between persons over the line of any such telephone company, except to a court of justice, or to a person authorized to know the same, shall, on conviction, be fined not less than ten dollars [$10.00] nor more than five hundred dollars [$500.00]." In addition to the above, the 92d session of the general assembly passed H. 388, which act will become effective when published and promulgated by the secretary of state. This act concerns the unlawful procurement of telecommunication services, and insofar as pertinent, reads as follows: "SECTION 1. Any individual, corporation, or other person, who, with intent to defraud or to aid and abet another to defraud any individual, corporation, or other person, of the lawful charge, in whole or in part, for any telecommunications service, shall obtain, or attempt to obtain, or aid and abet another to obtain or to attempt to obtain any telecommunications service: Statutes, prohibiting all wiretapping and eavesdropping, reprinted at pp. 29–32, "State Statutes on Wiretapping." “(d) by installing, rearranging, or tampering with any facilities or equipment, whether physically, inductively, acoustically, or electronically; shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, be imprisoned not exceeding one year or fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, or both, in the discretion of the court." You will note that the above requires intent to defraud of the lawful charge for telecommunications service. In my opinion, therefore, it is not strictly a "wiretapping" law. We have in this State no statute concerning "eavesdropping" as such. The only judicial determinations bearing on this subject appear to be with relation to testimony by a third person concerning privileged communications. The decisions to which I have reference concern third persons present when such communications were made. I have been unable to find any decisions treating instances of conscious, secretive eavesdropping. One decision, Davis v. State (1928), 200 Ind. 88, 161 N.E. 375, held that where identity has been established, a telephone switchboard operator could properly testify as to a telephone conversation between codefendants in a prosecution for conspiracy to explode a bomb in a hotel in which strikebreakers were housed. This decision would appear to relate more to "eavesdropping" than to "wiretapping," but since it treated a telephone conversation, I bring it to your attention. I have no specific recommendation concerning the desirability or need for Federal legislation in this area since the problem has not arisen as yet in Indiana. Sincerely, IOWA EDWIN K. STEERS, Attorney General of Indiana. STATE OF IOWA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Dear Senator ERVIN: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 13, 1961, in which you request information concerning the law of Iowa on wiretapping and eavesdropping. Section 716.8, 1958 code of Iowa, provides : "Any person who shall wrongfully or unlawfully tap or connect a wire with a telephone or telegraph wire of any person, company, or association engaged in the transmission of messages on telephone or telegraph lines between the states or in this state shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding six months." There are no reported Iowa cases dealing in any way with this statute, and we are therefore unable to provide any specific information with regard to the position of our supreme court on wiretap evidence. Our court has, however, stated its position on the admissibility of evidence obtained illegally, as follows: "Assuming, but not holding, that the search was illegal since it was done without benefit of a search warrant, the articles obtained thereby are admissible in evidence if otherwise admissible. This is the established rule in this state. State v. Tonn, 195 Iowa 94, 191 N.W. 530; State v. Rollinger, 208 Iowa 1155, 225 N.W. 841; State ex rel Kuvle v. Bisignano, 238 Iowa 1060, 28 N.W. 2d 504." State v. Smith, 247 Iowa 500, 503, 73 N.W. 2d 189 (1955). On the basis of the above decisions, it appears quite likely that the Supreme Court of Iowa would hold wiretap evidence admissible in the courts of this State. As chief law enforcement officer of this State, I am in full accord with this position. It would certainly seem that the public policy served by punishing those who obtain evidence illegally would not be served by excluding such evidence, otherwise admissible in criminal prosecutions. If the exclusion of such evidence in the Federal courts is merely a judicially created rule of evidence, Congress could of course, make such evidence admissible by statute. I believe that such action would be desirable and would certainly recommend that it be taken. Very truly yours, EVAN HULTMAN, Attorney General of Iowa. KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Topeka, Kans., April 26, 1961. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: This is to acknowledge your letter of April 13, 1961. You there asked after the laws of the State of Kansas concerning (1) wiretapping, and (2) eavesdropping. As to No. 1 you are advised that we have no State statutes relating directly to the subject of wiretapping. As to eavesdropping, this office is not certain as to the nature of the information desired by you thereon. You are advised that our legislature has not deemed it needful to legislate in this area for the people of Kansas. We have no common law crimes in this State. If I can be of further assistance in this inquiry, I shall be most happy to furnish you such information as possible upon request. Very truly yours, KENTUCKY WILLIAM M. FERGUSON, Attorney General. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: My apology for the delay in acknowledging your letter of the 13th of last month in connection with wiretapping and eavesdropping legislation under consideration by your committee, but I have delayed hoping that the pressure of events would ease sufficiently to make it possible for me to assign the subjects for the study and review their importance deserves. Unfortunately this has not been possible and I am, therefore, afraid that this office will not be able to make a contribution at this time. I am attaching, for your information, a copy of KRS 433.430, concerning wiretapping. We fail to find any statute covering eavesdropping. With every best wish, I am, Sincerely yours, JOHN B. BRECKIN RIDGE, Attorney General. LOUISIANA STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Baton Rouge, April 18, 1961. MY DEAR SENATOR: As requested in your letter of April 13, there is enclosed herewith copy of our Louisiana wiretapping statute. I will advise you further as soon as possible on the subject matter of letter of April 13. Yours very truly, JACK P. F. GREMILLION, The statute penalizes interference with telegraph or telephone lines. Reprinted, p. 39, "State Statutes on Wiretapping." 5 The statute, sec. 332, title 14, Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated, prohibits wiretapping and provides that the section shall not be construed to prevent officers of the law, while in actual discharge of their duties, from tapping in on wires for the purpose of obtaining information to detect crime. It is reprinted at p. 40, "State Statutes on Wiretapping. |