◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP04M01816R000502010009-4 24 Whether the openings of mail in the present case violated section 1702 depends upon two related points: First, was authorizatio~. from a person empowered to give 7/ such authorization, obtained for the East Coast Project?- Second, if some authorization was obtained, was it effective~ Resolution of the latter question requires a consideration of whether the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution permits officials of the Executive Branch to authorize the opening and reading of international mail and, if so, under what con- ditions and by what means. We turn to a consideration of those problems. B. The requirement of lawful authorization. Some courts have treated section 1702 as a specific intent statute,which would make prosecution overwhelmingly difficult. The Department of Justice believes, however, that a better view of the law is taken by the courts,which have treated it as a "general intent" statute,providing that persons shall not open envelopes moving through the mails. Its pro- hibition does not, however, extend to openings that have been lawfully authorized. Thus, other statutes (see, !L:..&·, 19 U.S.C. §482) authorize the opening of envelopes under specified cir- cumstances, and acting under its general powers the Postal Service 7/ Since no statute authorizes the CIA to intercept or open mail in United States postal channels, legal authority for the East Coast Project could be derived only from powers granted to the President by Article II of the Constitution and delegated by him to the CIA or others. A roved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-ROP04M01816R000502010009-4