- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011