Lecture 4 3 14 Electronic Surveillance Package for wiretap is much more complex but go through the same process still need probable cause More difficult to get because they are more intrusive Not applicable to consensual search or pen registers 1968 Title III Super Warrant what is entailed Wiretap only where both parties are unaware of being taped CRIMINAL o Minimization and other issues Promising to listen to the calls to the least extent possible to prove the criminal conduct If a call lasts more than 2 minutes you will listen to the first 2 minutes of the call or less and then turn off the device if you do not hear any criminal conduct click off for 30 seconds then click on for 30 seconds continue until the call is over once there is criminal conversation you can listen to the whole conversation but once it is over you can only do the 30 30 rule Summary 2 minutes then 30 30 rule Good for 30 days o Have to prove that it s a Law enforcement technique of last resort o Trap and Trace not a Title III issue Phone companies court ordered to give subscriber info o Confidential Informant can agree to being monitored and listened to consensual call nothing wrong federally In MD both parties have to be aware FISA The Post 9 11 World Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act NATIONAL SECURITY o FISA is a federal statute enacted by Congress in 1978 that governs electronic surveillance and physical searches of foreign intelligence targets in the United States o Should not be against a U S person had to be an agent of a foreign power someone in US working for China Iran etc o Don t use the wiretap to prosecute use it to throw this person out of the country because he is not here for legitimate reasons o Runs for longer time does not require last resort o Good for 90 days FISA and Title III require probable cause and minimization Wiretaps good for up to 30 days report for every 10 days or 15 days interim report NSL o Command to a bank for a non US person o Asking for subsequent bank information Roving wiretap phone companies are required to change the wiretap to the new phone number for the person who continuously changes the phone don t need to keep getting a warrant for 30 days o Not permitted with terrorist cases until 2001 with the Patriot Act Effect of Illegal Search Seizure The Law of Franks v Delaware Challenging the sufficiency of the warrant Can accuse the cops of false information which would require the cop to have a defense hearing on their validity and reliability can have the Confidential Informant identity present Defense lawyer has to make a substantial preliminary showing o If you want to accuse the affiant of lying you need evidence as to how you know he was lying witnesses sometimes lie o Franks Hearing challenges the accuracy and validity of the probable cause Suppression of evidence exclusionary rule Evidence is lost if you obtained it illegally Law enforcement agent if you do something deliberately bad violate individuals rights you are subject to other problems besides losing the evidence o Ex Duke Lacrosse case where the prosecutor kept evidence away from the defense prosecutor went to jail Criminal Civil Liability Exceptions to Warrant Requirement SITLA Requirements Automatic Search Lawful arrest based on antecedent probable cause warrant o Differs from frisk o Must be contemporaneous with arrest Search of person pockets in wingspan search of body Chimel v California 1969 o Definition of wingspan Scope of wingspan search Person and items Habeus Corpus petition to continue the case even after the normal things are done shows new evidence at new hearing