Chapter 12-Electronic surveillance Flashcards Preview

Briefs of leading Cases in Law Enforcement > Chapter 12-Electronic surveillance > Flashcards

Flashcards in Chapter 12-Electronic surveillance Deck (16)
Loading flashcards...

In Olmstead v United States, Supreme Court said that wiretapping does not violate the 4th if there is no trespass into constitutionally protected area.

This enabled police to conduct legal wiretaps as long as they did not illegally intrude into the persons dwelling.


Katz v United States, Court overruled Olmstead and held that any form of electronic surveillance that violates a reasonalbe expectation of privacy constitutes a search under the 4th

Means that electronic surveillance is unconstitutional anywhere if it violates a persons reasonable expectation of privacy.


main Federal Law governing electronic surveillance is

Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968


Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968

states that law enforcement officer (federal, state and local) cannot tap or intercept wire communications or use electronic devices to intercept private conversations.


exceptions to Title III

1. court order authorizing the wiretap
2. consent is given by one of the parties to the conversation


Court order authorizing the wiretap can be issued only:

if state law authorizes it, subject to the provisions of Title III.


Consent given by one of parties to the conversation may be prohibited by:

State law


Wiretapping does not violate 4th unless theres is tresspass into constitutionally protected are

Olmstead v United States, 1928


What was the First major case decided by the Court on electronic surveillance?

Olmstead. The rule lasted from 1928 to 1967.
1967, Katz v United States was heard.


evidence obtained as a result of permission given by a "friend" who allowed the police to listen in on a conversation is admissible in court

On Lee v United States, 1952


Use of electronic devices to capture a conversation constitutes a search under the 4th and statutes must include constitutional safeguards to be valid

Berger v New York, 1967
Berger indicted and convicted on conspiracy to bribe the chairperson of the New York State Liquor Authority.
New York state statute authorizing electronic eavesdropping violate the 4th guarentee against unreasonable searches an seizures. This search was not valid.


Berger case was decided in 1967, one year prior to the enactment of Title III. Court in this case spelled out 6 requirements for a state law authorizing electronic surveillance to be constitutional.

1. warrant must describe with particularity the conversation that are to be overheard
2. showing of probable cause to believe that a specific crime has been or is being committed.
3. wiretap must be for a limited period
4. suspects whose conversations are to be overheard must be names in order
5. the return must be made to the court, showing what conversations were intercepted
6. wiretapping must terminate when the desired info has been obtained.
These requirements have been enacted into law by Title III.


Any form of electronic surveillance, including wiretapping, that violates a reasonable expectation of privacy, constitutes a search under the 4th. This case overrulled Olmstead

Katz v United States,1967


the warrantless monitoring of a beep (homing device) in a private residence violates the 4th

United States v Karo, 1984


warrant for the monitoring of a beeper should contain the:

1. object into which the beeper would be installed
2. circumstances leading to the request for the beeper
3. length of time for which beeper surveillance is requested.


using technological device to explore details of a home that would previously have been unknowable without phyical intrusion is a search and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant

Kyllo v United States, 2001
officers used thermal-imaging device to detect marij growing in home