◆ SpookStack

Memorandum to Cleveland Re; Surreptitious Entries In regard to question 21 of referenced memorandum dated December 8, 1975, all fequests to the Attorney General for the installation of electronic devices since 1970 have been in the form of Title III applicaticns. These appiications are reviewed for sufficiency of probable cause and are either authorized by the Attorney General or returned for further development of probable cause. As a result, it is difficult to maintain an accurate record of instances since 1970 when the Attorney General permission for the installation of listening devices was denied. On numerous occasions, Title III applications sent to the Department of Justice have remained there for many weeks with no action being taken, thereby rancy af tha nroahahla crauca and ranniringe tha submission of a new affidavit updating the previous information or targeting new individuals and locations. It is pointed out, however, that no entries into premises were conducted prior to the decision of the Attorney General and the obtaining of the appropriate court order, In regard to question 22, no pre court order surveys have been conducted in relation to any Title III microphone installations supervised by the Special Investigative Division. In those instances where microphones have been installed, the initial entry was not conducted until the issuance of the court order and, if no microphone installation was possible, it was not installed. In regard to question 23, no written cr oral instructions have been furnished to the field in regard to surreptitious entries in connection with the installation ef Title IJI microphones. As has been pointed out in the answer to question 20, procedures are prescribed by law and monitored by the local United States Attorney or Strike Force Attorney. ACTION: That this memorandum be routed to the Intelligence Division which is coordinating the Bureau's reply in this matter. hk ¥ CEC “38 fe Ge x. - ra ee ag i