Abstract
Police officials have long desired the power to use wiretap evidence in court but only in recent years has public support been strong enough to permit passage of enabling legislation. The 1968 Omnibus Crime Control Act allows Federal law enforcement officials to wiretap telephones and eavesdrop in conversations of those suspected of a wide variety of crimes, provided they obtain a warrant. The Supreme Court first addressed the wiretapping issue in 1928 when it upheld the ruling in Olmstead v. United States that wiretap evidence was admissible because the fourth amendment applied only to physical searches for physical evidence. The Court also said that the use of wiretap evidence could be regulated by Congress. However, in 1937, the Court interpreted a section of the Federal Communications Act as prohibiting the introduction of wiretap evidence into court. As these decisions dealt only with wiretapping, electronic surveillance or 'bugging' continued unregulated on a State-by-State basis. In 1967, Court decisions in Katz v. United States and Berger v. New York for the first time found conversations to be constitutionally protected. During the 1960's, the DOJ made a concerted effort to develop support for wiretapping on the basis that it was an indispensable tool in law enforcement and that adequate procedural safeguards existed to minimize any threats to individual privacy. Attorney General Robert Kennedy focused public attention on organized crime problems by allowing Joseph Valachi to testify and emphasized the need for legislation revising wiretapping laws. The President's Crime Commission appointed in 1965 also cited wiretapping as important in organized crime investigations. A search of the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature illustrates the impact of the DOJ's efforts. Between March 1966 and February 1968, the number of articles about wiretapping and electronic surveillance more than doubled that found in any previous or subsequent 2-year period. Concern over wiretapping ultimately resulted in Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act. Although this law's stated purpose was combating organized crime, its provisions allowed wiretapping for a broad range of offenses and gave the President discretionary powers in emergency situations. Other relevant issues, such as the effectiveness of wiretapping as an investigative technique, have remained unresolved. Footnotes and 19 references are included.
