Michael London - Page 37

                                       - 37 -                                         
             of authorization or approval" within the meaning of 18                   
             U.S.C. section 2517(5).  Petitioners argue that respondent,              
             accordingly, was required to obtain authorization or                     
             approval by a court of competent jurisdiction before the                 
             contents of the intercepted communications could be                      
             disclosed or used in these cases.  18 U.S.C. sec. 2517(5).               
             Respondent having failed to obtain such an order,                        
             petitioners argue that respondent's disclosure of the                    
             contents of the electronic surveillance in these cases                   
             would violate 18 U.S.C. section 2517(5), and, thus, such                 
             contents are not admissible in evidence in this proceeding               
             pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2515.                                      
                  Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. section 2517(5) and imposed              
             the requirement of making a subsequent application to                    
             obtain judicial approval to disclose communications                      
             involving "offenses other than those specified in the order              
             of authorization or approval", in order to provide                       
             assurance that the Government could not secure a wiretap                 
             authorization order to investigate an offense as a                       
             subterfuge to acquire evidence of a different offense for                
             which the prerequisites to an authorization order were                   
             lacking.  See, e.g., United States v. McKinnon, 721 F.2d                 
             19, 22 (1st Cir. 1983); United States v. Southard, 700 F.2d              

Page:  Previous  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011