Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

INTERCEPTION AND DIVULGENCE OF WIRE COMMUNICATIONS PROHIBITED Sec. 3. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by this Act, it shall be unlawful for any person to

(1) intercept, attempt to intercept, procure any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, or conspire with any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire communication; or

(2) divulge or disclose to any other person the contents of any wire communication if the person divulging or disclosing that information knows that such information, was obtained through the interception of a wire

communication by any person. (b) It shall not be unlawful under this section for any person to intercept any wire communication if that person is

(1) the sender of that communication;
(2) the person intended by the sender to be the recipient thereof ;

(3) a person authorized by the sender or by the intended recipient thereof to intercept that communication;

(4) an officer, agent, or employee of any common carrier for hire whose facilities are used in the transmission of that communication who intercepts that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident of the rendition of service by that common carrier; or

(5) an investigative or law enforcement officer acting pursuant to and in compliance with authorization duly given under section 4 of this Act. (c) It shall not be unlawful under this section for any person to divulge or disclose to any other person the contents of any wire communication if

(1) the person making such divulgence or disclosure is the sender of that communication, the person intended by the sender to be the recipient thereof, or a person authorized by the sender or by the intended recipient thereof to intercept that communication;

(2) such information has been divulged or disclosed previously by any person described in paragraph (1) of this subsection to any other person, or by any individual while giving testimony in compliance with the provisions of section 5(b) of this Act in any action or proceeding described in that section; or

(3) such divulgence or disclosure is authorized by and made in compliance with the provisions of section 5(a) or section 5(b) of this Act. (d) Violations of this section shall be punished as provided by section 1362, title 18, United States Code.

AUTHORIZATION FOR CERTAIN INTERCEPTION OF WIRE COMMUNICATIONS SEC. 4. (a) Upon application made by any investigative or law enforcement officer of the United States or any Federal agency, the Attorney General may authorize such officer to intercept any wire communication if the Attorney General determines that there is reasonable ground for belief that:

(1) a criminal offense punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year under chapter 37, 55, 105, or 115 of title 18 of the United States Code, or as an attempt or conspiracy to commit any such offense, has been committed or is about to be committed ;

(2) evidence essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the prevention of, that offense will be obtained through such interception of the described wire communications; and

(3) no other means are readily available for obtaining such evidence. (b) The Attorney General, or any officer of the Department of Justice or any C'nited States Attorney specially designated by the Attorney General, may authorize any investigative or law enforcement officer of the United States or any Federal agency to apply to a judge of competent jurisdiction for leave to intercept wire communications when such action is required to obtain evidence of, or to prevent, the commission of any criminal offense punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year (1) under chapter 37, 55, 105, or 115 of title 18 of the United States Code, (2) as an offense under any other statute of the United States which involves murder, extortion, bribery, gambling, racketeering, or the possession, use, or furnishing of narcotic drugs, or (3) as an attempt or conspiracy to commit any offense in violation of any such statutory provision.

(c) Any investigative or law enforcement officer of any State or any political subdivision thereof who is authorized by or pursuant to a statute of that State to make application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for leave to intercept any wire communication may apply, in conformity with the procedures prescribed by the law of that State, for leave to intercept wire communications within that State when such action is required to obtain evidence of, or to prevent, the commission of any criminal offense which is punishable under the law of that State by death or by imprisonment for more than one year as an offense defined by the law of that State which involves murder, kidnaping, extortion, bribery, gambling, or the possession, use, or furnishing of narcotic drugs, or as an attempt or conspiracy to commit any such offense.

(d) Upon application made to a judge of competent jurisdiction by any investigative or law enforcement officer authorized by or pursuant to subsection (b) or subsection (c) to make such application, the judge may enter an ex parte order granting leave to intercept the wire communications designated therein, at any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member, if the judge determines that there is reasonable ground for belief that:

(1) a criminal offense of any category described in subsection (b) or subsection (c) has been committed or is about to be committed ;

(2) evidence essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the prevention of, that offense will be obtained through such interception of the described wire communications; and

(3) no other means are readily available for obtaining such evidence. (e) Each application under subsection (b) or subsection (c) shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation of the applicant, and shall contain a full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant. The application shall (1) include a statement of the authorization under which the application is made, (2) include a statement of the purpose for which the application is made, (3) specify the nature and location of the communications facilities involved, (4) describe with particularity all previous applications made under this section to any judge by the applicant, or by any other person on behalf of the investigative or law enforcement office or agency of which the applicant is a member, for leave to intercept wire communications involving the same communications facilities for the same or any similar purpose, and (5) state the action taken by the judge upon each such previous application. The judge to whom any such application is made, before entering any order thereon, may require the applicant to furnish in support of the application additional documentary evidence or additional oral testimony.

(f) Each order granting leave under subsection (d) to intercept any wire communication shall specify

(1) the nature and location of the communications facilities as to which leave to intercept is granted;

(2) each offense to be prevented or as to which evidence is to be sought;

(3) the identity of the officers authorized to intercept those communications; and

(4) the period of time during which such officers are authorized to intercept those communications. (g) No order entered under subsection (d) may grant leave to intercept any wire communication for any period exceeding 60 days. The effective period of any such order may be extended for not more than 30 days upon application made to the judge who entered that order and a showing of reasonable ground for belief that such extension is necessary to obtain evidence of, or to prevent, the commission of an offense described in the order for which extension is sought.

AUTHORIZATION FOR CERTAIN DISCLOSURES OF INTERCEPTED WIRE

COMMUNICATIONS

Sec. 5. (a) Whenever any investigative or law enforcement officer intercepts any wire communication pursuant to and in compliance with the terms of any authorization duly given under section 4 for the purpose of obtaining evidence as to the actual or probable commission of any offense, and that communication provides, or may lead to the discovery of, evidence as to the actual or probable commission of that offense, such officer may divulge or disclose the contents of that communication to any officer or employee of the United States, any Federal agency, or any State if such divulgence or disclosure is required

for the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making the diFulgence or disclosure.

(b) Any individual who has received, by any means authorized by section 4 or section 5(a) of this Act, any information concerning a wire communication intercepted in compliance with authorization duly given under section 4 may divulge or disclose the contents of that communication, to the extent that it provides evidence as to the commission of any offense specified in the order authorizing the interception of that communication, when required to do so while giving testimony under oath in any criminal action pending in any court of the United States or of any State, or in any proceeding of a duly authorized committee or subcommittee of the Congress or either House thereof, or of the legislature of any State or any house thereof.

(c) Whenever any wire communication has been intercepted by any person, no part of the contents of that communication obtained through that interception may be received in evidence in any proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, or regulatory body or authority of the United States or any State from any witness if the disclosure or divulgence of that information by that witness (by any means other than the giving of testimony in that proceeding) would be in violation of section 3 of this Act. PENALTY FOR UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION OR DISCLOSURE OF WIRE

COMMUNICATIONS
Sec. 6. Section 1362 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by-

(1) redesignating the text thereof as subsection (a) thereof; and

(2) inserting at the end thereof the following new subsection; “(b) Whoever

“(1) willfully intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, or conspires with any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire communication in violation of section 3 of the Federal Wire Interception Act, or

“(2) willfully divulges or discloses to any other person, in violation of section 3 of the Federal Wire Interception Act, any part of the contents of any wire communication with knowledge that such information has been

obtained through the interception of a wire communication by any person, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. As used in this subsection, each term defined by section 2 of the Federal Wire Interception Act shall have the meaning given thereto by that section.”

BEPORTS CONCERNING INTERCEPTED WIRE COMMUNICATIONS Sec. 7. (a) Within thirty days after the expiration of any order (including any extension thereof) entered by any judge under section 4(d) of this Act, the judge shall transmit to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts a true and correct copy (1) that order and any order for the extension thereof, (2) the application made therefor, and (3) any application made for the extension of that order. Within thirty days after the denial by any judge of any application made to him for the entry of any order, or for the extension of any order previously entered by him, under that section, the judge shall transmit to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts a true and correct copy of that application.

(b) In March of each year the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shali transmit to the Congress a full and complete report concerning (1) all applications made under section 4(b) or 4(c) of this Act which were denied during the preceding calendar year, and (2) all orders entered under section 4(d) which expired during the preceding calendar year and the applications made therefor. Each such report shall state with respect to such applications and orders the following information :

(1) the number of applications made by, and the number of orders granting leave which were entered upon applications made by, each Federal agency and each investigative or law enforcement authority of any State or any political subdivision thereof;

(2) the number of orders granting leave entered, and the number of applications denied, by judges of competent jurisdiction of each court;

(3) the number of applications made, and the number of orders granting leave entered, with respect to each classification of criminal offenses as to which such applications were made;

(4) the number of applications made, and the number of orders granting leave entered, for the interception of wire communications within each State, indicating separately (A) the number of applications made, and the number of orders granting leave entered, for the interception of communications within each municipality or other political subdivision of each State, and (B) with respect to each classification of criminal offenses as to which information is furnished under paragraph (3), the number of applications made, and the number of orders granting leave entered, within each State, and within each municipality or other political subdivision thereof; and

(5) such other information as may be requested in writing from time to time by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, or by the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the Senate or of the House of Representatives.

COMMUNICATIONS ACT AMENDMENT SEC. 8. The proviso contained in section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1103; 47 U.S.C. 605) is amended to read as follows: "Provided, That this section shall not apply to (a) the intercepting, receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication broadcast, or transmitted by amateurs or others for the use of the general public, or relating to ships in distress, or (b) the interception of any wire communication, or the divulgence or disclosure of the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning thereof, if such interception, divulgence, or disclosure is declared by section 3 of the Federal Wire Interception Act not to be in violation of that Act.”

[8. 1822, 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: “g 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 a 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 the communication so intercepted if such interception was made after determination by a court of such State that probable cause existed for belief that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed and that a particular telephone or telegraph instrument is being, or will be, used in furtherance of the commission of that crime pursuant to which leave was granted to intercept such wire or radio communications transmitted by that telephone or telegraph instrument for a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty days."

Senator ERVIN. Eleven witnesses have testified before the committee in the course of its investigation on wiretapping and eavesdropping. Five days of public hearings were held on May 20, and 22, 1958, and July 9, December 15 and 16, 1959. In addition, written statements were received from 34 individuals and organizations. The resulting testimony, statements and background materials have been printed in 6 volumes totaling 2,008 pages.

The basic questions which motivated the subcommittee's study were: How do eavesdropping, wiretapping, and similar invasions of privacy affect our constitutional rights, and are present-day laws sufficient to protect the rights of the individual?

In order to obtain information for forming an opinion on these questions, the subcommittee previously invited witnesses to describe wiretapping and how it is done ; eavesdropping and methods of using it; the arguments in favor of their use, the arguments against their use; the status of the applicable law; and proposals, if any, for changing the law. Selected law professors were also asked to submit their opinions on the legal and constitutional issues involved.

A distinct and comprehensive definition of eavesdropping and wiretapping was suggested to the subcommittee by the Pennsylvania Bar Association's report of this subject. The study used the term "wiretapping as a specialized form of eavesdropping. Eavesdropping was said to be the "use of any device which will affect individual privacy by surreptitious factfinding."

The technical aspects of wiretapping and eavesdropping were described at length for the subcommittee by a technical communications engineering expert and a private investigator.

Previously the major arguments in favor of the use of wiretapping devices and the passage of wiretapping legislation were presented to the subcommittee by four witnesses-a professor of government, a State law enforcement officer, a former Federal law enforcement officer, and a private investigator. These witnesses were primarily concerned with the necessity for using wiretapping devices, and with the need for legislation controlling wiretapping. Their views were supported in varying degrees by a majority of the law professors polled by the subcommittee.

Major opponents of wiretapping who appeared before the subcommittee were concerned with the preservation of individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Two law enforcement officials and a defense attorney, who had argued some of the outstanding wiretapping cases, were among those who presented arguments against wiretapping. Two national organizations shared similar views.

In Olmstead v. U.S. (277 U.S. 438 (1928)), the Supreme Court held, in a closely divided decision of 5-4, that wiretapping per se is not unconstitutional under the fourth or fifth amendments.

Six years after the Olmstead decision, in 1934, Congress enacted the Federal Communications Act. The portion regarding "unauthorized publication or use of communications," section 605, reads as follows:

No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person.

Since the passage of this legislation, a considerable body of literature has developed on the subject of wiretapping as a result of judicial decisions pertaining to section 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 and related State statutes.

A subcommittee print released this week on "State Statutes on Wiretapping,” indicates that State and Federal laws dealing with this subject are diverse and often conflicting. Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act prohibits interception and divulgence of any wire or radio communication—a seeming prohibition of all wiretapping. Nevertheless, the subcommittee print shows that 6 States purport to authorize wiretapping under certain circumstances, 33

« ForrigeFortsett »