About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

15 J. Gender Race & Just. 165 (2012)
Anti-Wiretapping Statutes: Disregarding Legislative Purpose and the Constitutional Pitfalls of Using Anti-Wiretapping Statutes to Prevent the Recording of On-Duty Police Officers

handle is hein.journals/jgrj15 and id is 167 raw text is: Anti-Wiretapping Statutes: Disregarding Legislative Purpose and the Constitutional Pitfalls of Using Anti-Wiretapping Statutes To Prevent the Recording of On-Duty Police Officers Michelle K. Wolf* I. INTRODUCTION The law struggles to keep pace with the modem age of media, electronic communication, and social networking websites. Both the United States Supreme Court and Congress have attempted to adapt the Fourth Amendment to changing technology.' In 1968, Congress enacted a federal statute that regulated wiretapping procedures in order to comply with the principles the Supreme Court announced regarding the Fourth Amendment implications of eavesdropping that technological advances enabled.2 At first glance, the main purpose of federal and state anti-wiretapping statutes suggests that the statutes' goals were to limit the government's use of electronic surveillance to obtain evidence against a criminal suspect.3 In fact, one of the fundamental principles underlying the current federal anti- wiretapping statute, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, was to protect the sanctity and privacy of... communication. But what happens when the government uses these checks on intrusion into citizens' * J.D. Candidate 2012, University of Iowa College of Law. I am so grateful for all the editors on The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice. I owe special thanks to Laura Matter, Mary Conroy, and Amber Fricke. 1. See, e.g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (addressing the constitutionality of law enforcement's use of wiretaps on citizens). 2. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522 (2006); 132 CoNG. REC. H4039-01 (daily ed. June 23, 1986); Katz, 389 U.S. at 353. 3. See, e.g., 132 CONG. REC. H4039-01 (daily ed. June 23, 1986). Congress passed the initial version of the federal statute as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Id The title of that Act alone supports, and the legislative history confirms, the belief that the government used wiretaps to combat crime. The statute places limits on the government's ability to do this. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522 (2006). This Note uses the federal anti-wiretapping statute to encompass both the 1968 version, as well as the updated 1986 version. 4. 132 CONG. REc. H4039-01 (daily ed. June 23, 1986) (statement of Mr. Katstenmeier).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most