NCJ Number
5152
Journal
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Volume: 120 Issue: 3 Dated: (JANUARY 1972) Pages: 546-573
Date Published
1972
Length
28 pages
Annotation
FEDERAL JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND TITLE THREE OF THE OMNIBUS CC ACT ARE ANALYZED TO DETERMINE IF GRAND JURY WITNESSES HAVE THE STANDING TO CHALLENGE ILLEGAL WIRETAPS.
Abstract
THE PLAIN WORDS OF SECTION 2515 OF THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL ACT CAN CLEARLY SUPPORT A CONSTRUCTION PREVENTING GOVERNMENT QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED BY UNAUTHORIZED ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE DIRECTED AGAINST THEM. NEVERTHELESS THAT CONSTRUCTION IS QUESTIONABLE BECAUSE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT, PARTICULARLY SECTION 2518(10)(A) AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, INDICATE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO ALLOW MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS ONLY WHEN THE VICTIM BECOMES A LITIGANT IN AN ADVERSARY HEARING. BUT, EVEN IF TITLE III IS CONSTRUED NOT TO ALLOW GRAND JURY WITNESSES TO CHALLENGE THE SOURCE OF GOVERNMENT QUESTIONING, FEDERAL COURTS ARE NOT PRECLUDED FROM REVERSING CONTEMPT CONVICTIONS. THESE COURTS ARE INDEPENDENTLY OBLIGATED TO GIVE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT FORCE AND EFFECT, WHILE THE SUPREME COURT HAS INDEPENDENT SUPERVISORY POWERS OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE REMAINS THE PRIMARY INSTRUMENT WHICH COURTS CAN USE TO DETER SURREPTITIOUS AND DELIBERATE VIOLATIONS OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. ALLOWING WITNESSES TO CHALLENGE THE SOURCE OF GOVERNMENT QUESTIONING DOES NOT RUN AFOUL OF THE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE STANDING REQUIREMENT-FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS CANNOT BE VICARIOUSLY ASSERTED. IT DOES PREVENT COURTS FROM ACTIVELY ABETTING ILLEGAL CONDUCT. IT ALSO PREVENTS THE INFLICTING OF FURTHER HARM ON VICTIMS OF CALCULATED INVASIONS OF PRIVACY.