Law Commons^™

Establishing Inevitability Without Active Pursuit: Defining The Inevitable Discovery Exception To The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Stephen E. Hessler

Michigan Law Review

Few doctrines of constitutional criminal procedure generate as much controversy as the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Beyond the basic mandate of the rule - that evidence obtained in violation of an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding - little else is agreed upon. The precise date of the exclusionary rule's inception is uncertain, but it has been applied by the judiciary for over eight decades. While the Supreme Court has emphasized that the rule is a "judicially created remedy," and not a "personal constitutional right," this characterization provokes argument as …

Evidence - Admissibility In Federal Courts Of Record Of Telephone Conversation-Meaning Of "Interception", Robert C. Fox S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

In a prosecution for perjury committed before a subcommittee of Congress, defendant filed a motion to suppress the record of a telephone conversation which had been made by the other party to the conversation without defendant's knowledge or consent.

Held , motion granted. To record a telephone conversation in this manner is to intercept it within the meaning of section 605 of the Communications Act; under the Supreme Court's ruling in Nardone v. United States, divulgence in court of a conversation so intercepted would be a violation of the Communications Act. United States v. Stephenson, (D.C. D.C. 1954) …

Constitutional Law - Search And Seizure - Evidence Of Prior Search As Bearing On Credibility Of Defendant's Testimony, Ira A. Brown, Jr.

Michigan Law Review

In 1952 petitioner was indicted in a federal court, charged with illegal sales of narcotics. During direct examination by his counsel, petitioner denied ever having had possession of narcotics. On cross-examination by the government, petitioner repeated his denial and continued to do so even when the government questioned him, over his objection, concerning a heroin capsule unlawfully seized in his home in 1950. Evidence of the unlawful seizure in 1950 had been ruled inadmissible in an earlier trial. Petitioner's denials were squarely in conflict with an affidavit he had filed at the earlier trial. In rebuttal, the government introduced testimony …

Evidence - Wiretapping And The Congress, Richard W. Pogue S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The familiar cry that "there ought to be a law" is frequently raised concerning the practice which Justice Holmes long ago characterized as "dirty business" - the tapping of telephone wires. Although existing legislation on both federal and state levels deals with interception of telephone messages, the almost universal conclusion of commentators on the subject has been that many of the present day statutes are inadequate. It is particularly apparent that the famous section 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 has long been in need of replacement or thorough revision. The purpose of this comment is to examine …

Evidence - Federal Communications Act - Admissibility Of Evidence Which Became Accessible By Wire-Tapping, Edmond F. Devine

Michigan Law Review

Petitioners were convicted under a federal indictment for frauds on the revenue. The United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground it was obtained by use of evidence secured in violation of section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 by wire-tapping. A new trial resulted in conviction and eventually the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to consider the question whether evidence indirectly obtained by that wire-tapping could be admitted despite the first holding. Held, such evidence is inadmissible on the basis that to rule otherwise would largely nullify the doctrine previously laid down. Nardone …

Evidence - Criminal Law And Procedure - Admissibility Of Recording Made On Device At Receiving End Of Telephone Conversation, William H. Klein

Michigan Law Review

In a prosecution for conspiracy to violate the narcotic laws, defendant objected to the admission of a recorded telephone conversation between himself and an informer, taken down by the latter on a device attached to the receiver. Defendant contended that this was inadmissible under the rule of Nardone v. United States. Held, the evidence was not intercepted, therefore not within the purview of the Federal Communications Act and, consequently, admissible despite the Nardone decision. United States v. Yee Ping Jong, (D. C. Pa. 1939) 26 F. Supp. 69.