From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 05:11:42 PDT
To: smb@research.att.com
Subject: Re: Disturbing statistics on wiretaps
In-Reply-To: <199309290751.AA24066@eff.org>
Message-ID: <199309291205.AA25225@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


 
Steve Bellovin writes:

> I realize that you know more about the relevant case law than I do.  It
> would be pretty sad if you didn't.  But I'm not completely ignorant of
> either this subject in particular, or constitutional law in gneral, and
> I like to learn more.  I'm asking to be educated, and I don't like to
> rely on assertions by authority.

This is both a fair comment and a fair request. Sorry for being irritable
yesterday.

> I advanced what I thought was a
> fairly strong argument against your point.  Further, the wording of the
> statute seems pretty clear to me.  18 USC 2515:
> 
> 		Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire,
> 		       oral, or electronic communications
> 
> 	     Whenever any wire, oral, or electronic communications has
> 	been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication
> 	and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in
> 	any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court,
> 	grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legis-
> 	lative committee, or other authority of the United States, a
> 	State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of
> 	that information would be in violation of this chapter.
 
This is not an accurate presentation of 2515, Steve. "Electronic
communications" was not added to 18 USC 2515 by ECPA. The statutory
exclusionary rule applies only to wire and oral communications. 

> As I read it, if the government doesn't follow the wiretap rules,
> the evidence thereby obtained can't be used.  What have I missed?

You've missed the actual language of 18 USC 2515. I don't know where you
got this one.


--Mike