◆ SpookStack

TO nt i a a ll lal Attorney General McGrath responded to the Director's request by memorandum dated February 26, 1952. (Exhibit 909 ) He said that the use of a microphone surveillance which did amt Oe ee es, oe eee Se, Sen —— ft OB .. FH AVVLVeS FLOUSPAsSes WU SCeH tO PO PETRsssaPple unaer tT2e not i present state of the law and cited United States v. Goldstein (316 U.S. 129). He observed that surveillances that “involve trespaas are in the area of the Fourth Amendment, and evidence so obtained and from leads go obtained is inadmissible." Mr. McGrath went on to say, “The records do not indicate that talg Guosticn dzalins with microphores has ever heen presented pofore; therefore, please be advised that I cannot authorize the installation of a microphone involving a trespass* under existing law." On this memorandum the Director noted, "See that eo ee ol T al al “AGCOFGaERGS wr a £ oO with the Director's instructions, all Special Agents in Charge were advised by letter datod March 4, 1952, that effective immediately authorization would not be granted to install any microphone surveillance involving trespass and that any such installation presently being utilized should be *#Underlining is in the original memorandum from the Attorney General. - 19 - eae