Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Professor BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, that is the one question I do not think I will comment on.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that you wrote the brief in that Professor BLAKEY. I wrote the brief.

case.

The CHAIRMAN. You wrote the brief against the Government. Professor BLAKEY. I wrote it in favor of the people of New York Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt at this point. I think Professor Blakey has written a very important and significant brief in the Berger case. I would like to suggest that we include i as part of the record here because it is a very learned brief.

The CHAIRMAN. Should we include then the Government's brief! Mr. MATHIAS. I think it is fair enough.

The CHAIRMAN. We will include at this point, briefs for both sides. Mr. MATHIAS. I have a copy which is available for counsel at the conclusion.

(The information referred to follows:)

No. 615

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1966

RALPH BERGER, Petitioner

V.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE URGING AFFIRMATION On Behalf of

Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts;

Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General, State of Oregon;

National District Attorneys' Association,

211 East Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611

Of Counsel:

G. ROBERT BLAKEY,

Notre Dame Law School,

Notre Dame, Indiana,

219-284-6626

[blocks in formation]

I. Organized crime and corruption today poses
special dangers to values held high by our
society and a unique challenge to law enforce-
ment

A. The constitutional questions raised by this
case must be resolved by a process of bal-
ancing

...

...

B. The constitutional questions must be placed
in the larger context of organized crime and
corruption today

1. Organized crime has deep roots in our cul-
ture and history

...

Page

1

2. Organized crime and corruption today are
compounded by population growth, den-
sity, and diversification as well as urbani-
zation and industrialization

3. Organized crime today is highly structured
and formalized, acquiring an almost im-
personal existence

4. Organized crime today has impact which
cuts across our society

a. gambling

b. narcotics

c. loan sharking

d. legitimate business.

e. legitimate unions

[blocks in formation]

f. democratic processes

g. value structure

Page

35

37

II. Criminal sanctions can consistently be brought
to bear on organized crime and corruption only
by the use of electronic surveillance techniques 39
A. Existing studies demonstrates the need for
electronic surveillance techniques

1. The Report of the Privy Councillors ...
2. The Report of the President's Commission
on Law Enforcement and the Administra-
tion of Justice

III. Our constitutional traditions under the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments do not prohibit court or-
der electronic surveillance.

A. Court order electronic surveillance is not
inconsistent with the free speech guarantees
of the First Amendment

39

44

48

[blocks in formation]

B. Court order electronic surveillance is not inconsistent with the reasonable search and seizure guarantee of the Fourth Amendment 56 1. Section 813-a must meet a test of reasonableness

2. A court order system is reasonable

56

[ocr errors]

...

3. No indiscriminate search and seizure is
authorized

62

4. Seizure of communication is not unrea-
sonable per se

69

71

5. The general requirement of notice is here
inapplicable

C. Court order electronic surveillance is not

Conclusion

inconsistent with the no compulsory self-
incrimination guarantee of the Fifth Amend-
ment ...

74

75

[blocks in formation]

Mass. Gen. L. Annt., Ch. 272 § 99 (1954)

Md. Annt. Code (1957):

Article 27, § 125A

Article 35, § 94 ...

Nevada Rev'd Stat., § 200.660 (1963)

15, 68, 74, 75

42, 53

53

5

New York Code of Criminal Procedure, § 813-a (1958)

Ore. Rev'd Stat., § 41.720

CASES:

689

3, 4, 5, 9, 60, 64, 70, 74, 76

11

A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964)
Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960)

Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 (1925)

Aguiler v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964)

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Black v. United States, No. 1029, Oct. Term 1965, Supplemental Memorandum for the United States 42

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)

..

...56, 58, 65,

.....

...

66, 68

Brown v. United States, 276 U.S. 134 (1928)
California v. Thayer, 63 Cal. 2d 635, 408 P. 2d 108

(1965)

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)

Carbo v. United States, 314 F. 2d 718 (9th 1963), cert.

denied, 377 U.S. 953 (1964)

66

69, 70

54

28

62

Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959)
Durham v. United States, 214 F. 2d 862 (D.C. 1954)
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960)
Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1877)

[blocks in formation]

Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)

75

F.T.C. v. American Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298 (1924) .. 69
Freeman v. Freeman, 130 N.E. 220 (Mass. 1921)
Go Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344

(1931)

... 15

57,59

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »