The use of wire taps by federal agents for purposes criminal investigations are admissible only if a warrant was issued to do so. Because of their similarity to searches and seizures, the fourth amendment warrant clause applies to electronic surveillance as well. Obtaining a warrant for electronic surveillance requires showing probable cause to a Judge, describing in particularity the conversation to be intercepted, providing a specific time period for the interception of the communications device, and noticing the property owner unless law enforcement can show “exigent circumstances”.
As with routine searches and seizures, exigent circumstances may serve as grounds for law enforcement to dispense with first obtaining a warrant. if law enforcement encounters a situation threatening a person’s life, a conspiracy threatening the national security, or a conspiracy suggesting organized crime, then law enforcement may proceed without first acquiring a warrant.
Title III requires Federal, state and, other government officials to obtain judicial authorization for intercepting “wire, oral, and electronic” communications such as telephone conversations and e-mails. It also regulates the use and disclosure of information obtained through authorized wiretapping. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2516-18.
Under § 2516. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3), a judge may issue a warrant authorizing interception of communications for up to 30 days upon a showing of probable cause that the interception will reveal evidence that “an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense” listed in .
18 U.S.C. § 2517 provides that a law enforcement or investigating officer may use, disclose to another law enforcement or investigating officer, or disclose during testimony information obtained in authorized wiretapping, provided the use or disclosure “is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.” .
18 U.S.C. § 2517 provides that any Federal official who “receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person’s official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.” .
Federal wiretaps implement any issues including the the fourth amendment right against search and seizures. Many attorney’s argue that there need not be a physical intrusion into a tangible area in order to constitute a search. The Court already has recognized that certain “constitutionally protected areas” fall under the Fourth Amendment’s protections. The trespass doctrine results in an overly literal reading of the Fourth Amendment. The objective of a wiretap is the same as a physical search — to provide evidence that a crime has been committed. Therefore, the full protections of the Fourth Amendment should apply to wiretaps as well as searches.
