This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: CJ 1123 Criminal Evidence and Procedure Chapter 13: Electronic Surveillance and Other Searches Electronic Surveillance and Other Searches 13.1 Eavesdropping and Electronic Surveillance SC key distinction in eavesdropping and electronic surveillance is not whether electronic surveillance is being used but whether the person making the comments knows a listener is present Misplaced Reliance Doctrine When the suspect knows someone is listening, the burden is on them to make sure he can trust everyone who can hear what is said It applies whether or not tape recorders or radio transmitters are used The person who overhears the conversation may carry tape recorders or radio transmitters w/o prior authorization of a judge Hoffa v US Jimmy Hoffa on trial DOJ had another union official released from prison Partin Partin was instructed to join his entourage and report of Hoffas out of court activities overheard plans to tamper with the jury (case ended with hung jury) Evidence was used in case where Hoffa was charged with bribing jurors SC said this was a case of misplaced reliance Hoffa knew Partin was present and took the risk he might report the jury tampering US v White federal narcotics agents used concealed radio transmitters to record conversation bt agents and the defendant in public places Informant allowed an agent to hide in a kitchen closet and transmit conversations bt the informant and the defendant Also admissible under Misplaced Reliance should have been more careful in deciding who to trust Electronic Surveillance This has troubled the SC bc of its potential for abuse Victim may be totally unaware the govt is listening Key decisions on this topic were made in 60s and 70s technology has changed since then Standard for 4 th A is reasonable expectation of privacy originally came from a wiretap case Prior to that time electronic surveillance had focused on trespassing anything the police could accomplish w/o physically trespassing was OK Katz v US agents had probable cause to believe the suspect was using a phone booth as part of an interstate gambling operation Listening device was placed on the outside of the public booth no trespass Meridith Spencer Page 1 of 7 CJ 1123 Criminal Evidence and Procedure Chapter 13: Electronic Surveillance and Other Searches SC said there was a reasonable expectation of privacy bc Katz entered the booth, closed the door and kept his voice down Berger v NY reviewed issuing of warrants permitting electronic surveillance Statutes authorizing these warrants must provide very precise requirements (description of the offense and types of conversations officers expect to seize) Warrant must be limited to a short period of time (not defined) Extension of the warrant muse be based on a showing that PC exists for the continuance of the surveillance warrant must have a return Federal Legislation on Electronic Surveillance Congress enacted Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 06/25/2008 for the course CRJ 152 taught by Professor Spencer during the Spring '05 term at Middlesex CC.
- Spring '05