◆ SpookStack

coe owe Fa Senta FO ML al eh PP ns en PO Din et Od cert Ce aN et Go rg Sa a Re TR et re = LSS ims tee a. ae ain lane Mae a ena ed Mg i SAT he Ot Ee nl atin SO gens NE Sr ee SLT Been Memorandum to Mr. E. S. Miller RE: ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE FOR INTEL).IGENCE PURPOSES ON THE SYMBIONESE LIBEXATION ARMY (SLA) IN THE PATRICIA HEARST CASE time, there is no need to seek such legislation from the Congress." And later ".,,if future events should indicate that the effect of the Keith decision is to deprive the Department of valuable intelligence information, our present position will be subject to re-evaluation." The AAG, ISD was obviously talking about his position not to seek enabling legislation at that time. However, we had also discussed among ourselves and with the ISD, the possibility of attempting to obtain a warrant for domestic intelligence electronic surveillance without new legislation, not under Title III, because of its probable cause and notice requirements, but under some already existing civil or criminal procedure. In summary, those discussions led us to the conclusion that when we had a preper case, we should attempt to obtain a warrant to conduct a domestic intelligence electronic surveillance under F.R. Cr.P. 41, pertaining to seach warrants. The opinion of DJ is F.R. Cr.P. 41 provides only for search and seizure of material things and would not be availuble for application for an electronic surveillance warrant, Assuming that the objectives of our intended seizure, intercepted conversations, would not fall within the definition of the items or grounds defined in F.R, Cr.P. 41(b) or 18 U.S.C, 3103(a), a judge would have to be convinced that he has inherent power to issue a warrant for such items (telephone or microphone interceptions) and on such grounds that he may determine, in the interest of national security. The inherent difficulty in attempting to obtain a warrant under F.R. Cr.P. 41 is that, in addition to the fact that its definition of items which can be seized does not encomvass intercepted conversations, it also requires a showinr of probable cause as traditionally understood, and it reauires notice to the party whose property is being seized at the time of the seizure. For a judge to issue an electronic surveillance Warrant under F.R. Cr.P, 41, he would have to disregard practicall. ° Qe CONTINUED - OVER * me ” .. i . ats a ek ce EY ees