◆ SpookStack

Memorandum C. D. Brennan to Mr. . C. Sullivai RE: ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCES 66-8160 agencies should submit their requests directly to the Attornej General. By memorandum dated June l, l967. Clark replied that although the Director was correct in his observathn, he, Clark, did not believe that the requesting agencies should bypass the Bureau and communicate directly with him. Memorandum of July 2, l96s, from the Director reguested the Attorney General's views and statement of policy concerning the effect the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 would have on our past, present, and future electronic surveillance in the internal security field. No reply was received from Clark in spite of iollow-ups having been sent on four occasions prior to his leaving office. Microphone Surveillances Policy The early use of microphones by the FBl is not recorded in any detail. It appears that they were used in tbe Iate l92o's and early l93o's to obtain intelligence in criminal cases. Prior Bureau authorization of microphone installations was first required in ls38 and since that time, Bureau headquarters has maintained tight control over the field in the use of these devices. Over the years, the FBI continually sought legal advice from the Department concerning microphone installations and the admissabilit of evidence obtained from them. In the early 1940's the Department relied on a Supreme Court decision in Goldman v. U.S. which held th a microphone surveillance was not equivalent to an illegal search and seizure prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. On this basis, the Department advised that evidence from a microphone surveillance would be admissable. In l946, the Department, recognizing the un- settled state of the law in this area, continued to maintain their position even though Bureau officials continued to be concerned about the admissability of evidence obtained from sicrophones involving trespass. In 19sl, the overall issue of microphones involved in trespass ws presented directly to the Department. The Department ruled that they would not approve any installation of microphones involving trespass, an illegal activity. This presented a problem because under the then existing Iaw it was difficult to determine what actually constituted trespass. Faced with this situation, the Executive Conference of May 5,~1952, unanimously recommended that microphones be installed without trespass and that if this is not possible and the intelligence to be gathered is = necessary adjunct to the investigation in select cases, consideration be given to authorizing a microphone.' In.l952 Attorney General McGranery CONTINUED - OVER