92 the appellant had contraband in his bedroom. No reason was alleged for this belief in the sworn affidavit he subsequently signed, but the warrant that issued was sustained, probable cause being established [see also, United States v. Eisner, 297 F. 2d 595 (6th Cir. 1962), cert. den. 369 U. S. 859 (1962); United States v. Meeks, 313 F. 2d 464 (6th Cir. 1963); United States v. Ramirez, 279 F. 2d 712 (2d Cir. 1960)]. In United States v. Trujillo [191 F. 2d 853 (7th Cir. 1951)], an undercover agent visited the appellant's apartment, seeking to buy drugs. The appellant admitted that he was engaged in selling marihuana, but declined to deal with the agent since he had not been personally introduced to him and since his supplier had recently been arrested, cutting off his source of drugs. A warrant based solely on this information was upheld, the court indicating that probable cause was established from the admissions of the appellant describing his business. In sum, the affidavit herein, framed in 1962, when the procedures for obtaining eavesdrop orders were still young and unrefined, nonetheless set forth a sufficiently full array of facts to give rise to a reasonable belief that evidence of crime would be brought to light by eletronic surveillance. Deficiencies of amplitude or explicitness there may well have been in this affidavit, but they can not soften the kernal of manifestly reliable information from a disclosed source which justified the expectation of particularized discussions at a designated location. Accordingly, the order here in question, having resulted from a conscientious, good faith effort by the prosecutor to obtain prior court sanction for urgently required perception in an important investigation, should not fall, and the law 93 of New York, under which it was issued, should not be banished from the toolshed of law enforcement. Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1966 No. 615 RALPH BERGER, Petitioner, against NEW YORK, Respondent. ON WRIT OF Certiorari TO THE COURt of Appeals of New York. BRIEF FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT SAMUEL A. HIRSHOWITZ AMY JUVILER Assistant Attorney General of Counsel. LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Respondent 80 Centre Street New York, New York 10013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ARGUMENT-The legislative history and companion statutes of 813-a demonstrate that New York effectively prohibits all eavesdropping except by law enforcement officers acting with Court au- thorization upon a showing that there is probable |