From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:38:33 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
In-Reply-To: <01I7RM0CJM388Y4XIK@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <4tsfjm$oi6@joseph.cs.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In article <01I7RM0CJM388Y4XIK@mbcl.rutgers.edu>,
E. ALLEN SMITH <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> wrote:
> 
> The Administration's proposal would also significantly expand current
> wiretapping authority to allow multi-point (or "roving") wiretaps. This
> would dramatically change surveillance authority to include wiretaps of
> INDIVIDUALS instead of LOCATIONS.
> 

I don't get it.  Help me out here-- how can this possibly be constitutional?

I'm reading the Fourth Amendment to our honored Constitution of the United
States, which proclaims

	[...]
	no warrants shall issue,
	but upon probable cause,
	supported by oath or affirmation,
	and *particularly describing the place to be searched*,
	and the persons or things to be seized.

Are we just to strike out that emphasized phrase?  What's going on here?
Someone tell me I'm not just having a bad nightmare.

Apologies if these are silly questions,
-- Dave Wagner

P.S.  Do police really need a search warrant to wiretap cellular phones?