Some states expressly prohibit by law, on pain of civil consequences or criminal prosecution, electronic eavesdropping or wiretapping even if consent is given by one of the parties. What impact do these statutes have over the court order requirements under Title III? Why is this important?
What will be an ideal response?
Under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, law
enforcement officers nationwide, federal and state, cannot tap or intercept wire
communications or use electronic devices to intercept private conversations, except
in two situations: (1) if a court has authorized the wiretap? or (2) if consent is given
by one of the parties. The states have expanded the protections dealing with
electronic surveillance, so the state constitution or state law takes precedence in that
state only.
You might also like to view...
Politicized justice is usually mixed with real violations of conventional law
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Which of the following is not a valid general statement about human rights?
a. The idea of human rights is rooted in an ancient tradition, with the Bible as one early source. b. The modern understanding of human rights is principally product of the writing of Enlightenment philosophers. c. Until World War I the matter of human rights was essentially a domestic concern. d. The United Nations has been very successful in imposing fundamental human rights standards on the world’s governments.
Modern surveillance technologies are expected to continue to be used to access which of the following?
a. Telephone records and conversations b. Computer communications such as email c. Credit card records d. All of these
Which of the following are examples of external factors?
a. Testing effects b. Selection bias c. Reactivity or awareness of being studied d. All of the above