◆ SpookStack

: Ps ; ¥ MS d ; fe Sze Le Swavieg ac oases iki y orm! oe q IQ) > 2265 STRICTLY CONPIDENTIAL June 22, 1942 ALBANY DETROIT MEMPHIS PROVIDENCE ATLANTA EL PASO MIAMI RICHMOND BALTIMORE GRAND RAPIDS — MILWAUKEE $T. LOUIS BIRMINGHAM HONOLULU :WEWARK ST. FAUL BOSTON HOUSTON - NEW HAVEN SALT LAKE CITY BUFFALO HUNTINGTON NEW ORLEANS SAN ANTONIO BUTTE INDIANAPOLIS NEW YORK SAN DIEGO CHARLOTTE § JACKSON NORFOLK SAN FRANCISCO CHICAGO JUNEAU OKLAHOMA CITY SAN JUAN CINCINNATI KANSAS CITY OMAHA SAVANNAH CLEVELAND KNOXVILLE PHILADELPHIA § SEATTLE DALLAS LITTLE ROCK PHOENIX . SIOUX FALLS DENVER LOS ANGELES PITTSBURGH SPRINGFIELD _ DES MOINES LOUISVILLE PORTLAND WASHINGTON, D..C. QUANTICO RE: WIRE TAPPING y) near Sir mentasgirye nx GAA ED VeEar poll . ; a os . In response to the request by the Bureau for an o cerning the construction and application of two\Mecisions rendered _by therSupreme Court on April 27, 1942, relating to Wire ‘tapping in the capes of Goldstein versus United States and Goldman versus United States, ‘the Department has advised that these two decisions enunciate the fol- lowing propositions of law: : nion con- ry *]. The Court in tneGo1dnen case reaffirms the decision in v7 ~Olmstead versus United States, 277 U. S. 438, rendered in 1928, that wite ‘/ tapping does not constitute a search and seizure, and, therefore, is not ; ToleGievered by the ban of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search ; aan eetzure. This ruling eliminates the constitutional question entirely . Cleef POH wire tapping matters. Wire tapping is not a violation of any con- | Glavine) burional privilege, and the only point to be considered is whether and . Lada UAGSE Wt uhdér that circumstances it constitutes a violation of an ‘Act. of Congress. va Me BWishals woo: i. * ur. anole. —~' "2. The use of a detectaphone attached on the outér wall of th / tar. Traeyhr One occupied by the person whose conversation is being overheard, i ; ef Mr. CarsohO™ and, therefore, is not barred by Section 605 Va wMrr 8 1934, Mr ' ag ty . Bie profidsdso of Section 605 of the Communications Act of ae, 2 Ses gobs lephone conversations are concerned, is limit- yy ¢ can ~ to WM 20 thpes eu e communication traveling between the two ‘ _ ~ 3? Jhidina does. not melude the use of a bedadadt ablated : “ ‘iaWhacetsone ofa 0 of the conversation. of o- devi ne Atoarhas a nl WY. 1