◆ SpookStack

Memorandum to Mr. E, 5. Miller : RE: ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE FOR INTELLIGENCE ‘ PURPOSES ON THE SYMBIONESE LIBERATION ARNY i (S.A) IN THE PATRICIA HEARST CASE | | i The difficulty in the above proposed approach to obtain warrant under no recognizable rule or procedure focuses - on the word "and" in the last quoted sentence from the Keith opinion, The issue is whether the opinion requires congres- sional standards be articulated as a prereouvisite to judicial approval of a domestic intelligence warrant, or whether the "and" merely means that Congress may set standards i.e., the decision is just making clear that it does not preclude Congress from setting such standards. Our 2pproach to the USDC would be that since Congress has not yet acted and there is legitimate inmediate need for intelligence electronic surveillance in this case, there is «a void in the law, which can only be filled by judicial action. : Our application must also petition that no notice of the surveillance be given to those being surveilled, since this would render valueless the surveillance. Our petition could provide that we would come before the court, in camera, weekly, .bi-weekly or whatever, and describe the value of the surveillance, petition for its continuance, and justify the necessity for not disclosing its existence to the persons surveilled. Aiter the surveillance has served its purpose, notice can be given those persons. Also, consideration must be given to which USPC we will make our application. Ordinarily the USDC with juris- diction over the location of the telephone or place to be surveilled would be the appropriate court. However, the Supreme Court, in Keith, recognized that the ‘disclosure required by the Government in domestic national security cases to support its affidavit might be so sensitive that only one court should have warrant authority for the whole county, e.g., the USDC or Circuit Court of Appeals in D. C. -6- CONTINUED - OVER