◆ SpookStack

'· Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP04M01816R000502010009-4 - 31 - not be classified as "warrants" under the Fourth Amendment because they were not designed to seize identifiable things and were not "returned" to the issuing judge in the historical fashion. Other objections, too, were raised. Resort to the judiciary, it was said, would diffuse responsibility and accountability for surveillance; responsible executive officials should authorize surveillance when necessary, and the Consti- tution would not forbid this practice.14/ In 1967, in~ v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, the Supreme Court both overruled Olmstead and indicated that judges were empowered to issue surveillance orders in criminal cases. Katz held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and that law enforcement officers ordinarily must obtain advance judicial approval before intercepting communications in which there is a legitimate expectation of privacy. ~. however, did not resolve the question of whether a judicial warrant was available in non-criminal cases or whetlier it was necessary when national security was involved. The Supreme Court did not speak to the latter question until June 19, 1972, when it decided United States v. United States District Coure (Keith), 407 U.S. 297. The United States argued in that 14/ See,~·, Taylor,supra, at 90. A roved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP04M01816R000502010009-4