◆ SpookStack

e Approved For Release 2008/11/06~-CIA-RDP04M01816R000502010009-4 the Constitution or by federal laws and that, at the time the defendants acted, protection of the right or interest violated I had been "made definite by decision or other rule of law."- Weaknesses in the evidence and the difficulty of establishing the absence of presidential authorization suggest that the Department would not be able to meet the burden of establishing, ""·"'' beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants acted with the "specific intent" required by section 241 as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Moreover, it is doubtful that, at the time the defendants acted, the Fourth Amendment forbade their actions with sufficient clarity to be "definite;" between 1953 and 1973 there was substantial evolution of Fourth Amendment law, tt as discussed later in this Report. In a prosecution under section 1702 the Department would not be confronted with similar difficulties. All that is required to establish a prima facie violation of section 1702 is a showing that (a) the defendant opened mail in postal channels with "design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another" and (b) the defendant lacked lawful authority to do so. ~/ See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945). See also United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 806 n. 20 (1966); Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211 (1974). A roved For Release·2.008/11/06: CIA-RDP04M01816R000502010009-4