◆ SpookStack

* = held that electronic sir veillanee in the domics slic & rity arca conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive vidlated the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendinent, The Court, however, —™. emphasized the case involved only the domestic aspects of national a | | a security, “We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers 19 or their agents." -' Thus, the Sup eme Court has reserved judgment relative to the question of whether a warrantless electronic surveillance directed against forcign powers violates the Fourth Amendment, Every lower >. .. Federal Court that has faced the question, however, nas eh the o President may constit utionally authorize warrantless wiretaps when directed against foreign powers or their agente. ; In United States v. Brown the Court commented: "Restrictions upon the President's power which ‘are appropriate in cases of domestic security become artificial in the context of the international sphere... [A] thread. . . runs through the Federalist Papers: that the President must take care to safeguard the nation from _ possible foreign encroachment, whether in its existence aS oo a nation or in its intercourse with other nations. ' aM Sa Re oe os - The expansive language of United States v. * , Curtiss - Wricht Export Corp. provides support for the contention that the President is authorized to-act unencumbered by the Fourth Amendment requirement of prior judicial approval and probable cause when he is dealing ; with national security matters. "24 |