◆ SpookStack

In rendering this opinion, the Department stated; ",...Heretofore in every case in which the search ond seizure have been denounced and the evidence held inadmissible 1s constituting n violation of the rights secured by the Fourth and Fifth fmendments there h:s been a physical trespass against the defendant. “ "Therefore, it would seem that where there has been a physical trespass upon the premises occupicd by the defend: nt which directly results in affording the Federal agents with the means of listening to private convers: tions, the evidence obt2incd by that means would be inadmissible on the ground thet it was obtained by an illegal search «nd seizure. The hypothetical situations listed by the Director of the FBI pose varying defrees of trespass. The answers to the problems presented cre a matter of judmnent which must be based upon the reiutionship between the trespass and the ability to overhear the conversation." It 4s worthy of note that the Department stressed the physical aspect of the trespass involved in the installation of the microphone. It continued to rely on the authority of Goldnen v. United States in stating that there would be no violation: of the defendant's constitutional _ rights when the microphone was not installed within the premiscs occupied by the defendant and there was no trespass on those prenises. t @ 10 = ce Re pg SE Se i Sm er Sn niet mere ar =