◆ SpookStack

‘ The Fourth Mnendment is concerned with sudrches and seizures, not trespasses per se; both the interception-of oral communications and a surreptitious entry constitute significant intrusions upon interests pretected by the Fourth Amendment, Thus, if the President has the | authority to authorize warrantless electron surveillance against foreign powers it would appear that he could constitutionally authorize a surreptitious entry against foreign powers, Of course, the court in _ United States v. Ehrlichman, supra, commenting on recent lower Federal court cases which stated the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless electronic surveillance against forcign powers, characterized wiretapping as a "relatively nonobtrusive search." But wiretapping is an intrusion that can last for an indefinite period and is pervasive, while the intrusion connected with a physical entry is of relatively short duration and is usually directed toward a specific | objective. Thus, it would appear that where the objective of an entry is simply to_create the cireumstances for monitoring it is actually less intrusive than wiretapping. Where the objective of the entry is to conduct a physical search, the disparity between wiretapping and a —_ = ~ physical entry may be narrower, and depending on the circumstances, ~ a physical entry may approach wiretapping in intrusiveness. On appeal in the Ehrlichman case, the Departinent of Justice filed a memorandum for the United States as amicus curiae { friend of the court], commenting on the legality of the different forms of . «§-