NCJ Number
104337
Journal
Rutgers Law Journal Volume: 16 Issue: 3-4 Dated: (Spring-Summer 1985) Pages: 811-829
Date Published
1985
Length
19 pages
Annotation
In analyzing the legal and practical aspects of using electronic surveillance, this article first surveys the background and general requirements of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, followed by an analysis of its need and probable cause requirements. The application of Title III is illustrated in a case study of electronic surveillance that revealed organized crime's hidden interest in Las Vegas casinos.
Abstract
Title III mandates application and issuance procedures for orders of nonconsensual electronic interception of wire and oral communications. An application for a Title III order must be authorized by the Attorney General or any Assistant Attorney General designated by the Attorney General. The application, which is made to a judge of competent jurisdiction, must be in writing and under oath. Before a Title III order can be approved, the issuing judge must determine from the facts in the application that normal investigative procedures have failed, probably would fail, or are too dangerous, thereby establishing a need for the electronic surveillance. There must also be probable cause that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular enumerated offense and probable cause that particular communications concerning the offense will be intercepted. There must be probable cause that the place to be monitored is being or will be used in connection with the offense. The use of Title III is illustrated in the 'Strawman' operation, which led to the conviction of Kansas City and Chicago organized crime figures for having illegal hidden interests in Las Vegas gambling casinos. 106 footnotes.