◆ SpookStack

5 | 4 ame ty oe 2 - - * "4. The Court leaves open the question as to what would be the result if the premises were invaded and an instrument, guch as a dicta- phone, were left therein for the purpose cf overhearing a conversation carried on in such premises. In my opinion, hawever, in view of the limita- tion placed by the Court on the prohibitions of Section 605 of the Communica- tions Act, the use of a dictaphone in such a manner would probably not be violative of the ptatute . "Ss. Only a person who Was a party. to a conversation intercepted by wire tapping has a standing to object to ite use. Any other defendant in the same case who Was not a party to the conversation will not be heard to raise an objection that the evidence was illegally obtained. This conclusion was reached on the analogy to the cases which hold that in the event evidence is obtained by an unlawful search and seizure, no defendant may move to suppress the evidence except the one who was subjected to the unlawful search and seizure. "The Court did not pass upon the question as to whether wire tapping - in and of itself is a violation of the statute if such wire tapping is not connected with the use of the evidence obtained thereby in a court pro- ceeding. On this point, therefore the law remains as it was before the decisions were rendered. It has always been our view that since the 1 atatute prohibits any one to intercept and to publish or divulge a com- munication covered by the Act, it is not unlawful to intercept communica- tions, i. e., to tap wires, unless such interception is followed by publica- tion or divulgence." This information is submited for the attention and guidance of the investigative personnel in the field. ~ a , - Very truly yours, Jonn Edgar Hoover . Director