◆ SpookStack

have overheard conversations of the witnesses, the Smythe _ affidavit conclusively and unequivocally enies the claim of gthe witnesses, uncer 18 U.S.C. § 3504, thét, the, gubpoenps - vere, the product of unlawful électrenic stivelisentiy £ their " conversations. ‘ Moreover, the Penrith affidavit identifies |) the original source “of information concer ing the” ‘two wit- “nesses, As such, the denial is official, and 4 the. matter ig ate an end..." Gelbard v. United. Si ates, 408 U.S. Al, 72 Syrew f we & a) 1. It could be argued thet the governzent's response does not constitute a denial of all possible weens by which informa ‘| tion concerning the witnesses could have been gathered by . illegal wiretapping, in that it dces not. deny the possibility that information concerning the witnesses wes learned by over- hearing the conversation of two other individuals who may have been. discussing the Witnesses. The short answer to such a contention is that Section*3504 does not require the govern- ‘ment to respond to such asclaim. The statute requires the | governsent to respond "upon a'claim by a parson aezrieved,,." {emphasis supplied). Although Section 3504 itseIr does not ~ define the texm "person aggrieved, " Title TIL of the Omibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 totwhich Section 3504 expressly relates and in Light ‘ection 3504 should be construed, defines an "“ag- arieved. person" ses "a person who was a party to any inter- cepted wire oi oral commmication or 4 person against whom the | interception ‘Was! directed, " 18°U.S.C. § 2510(11). Applying - that definition to Section 3504, it appears that only those ‘who claim their own conversations were illegally monitored or- ‘ against whom it wes directed have standing to require the : government to respond under Secticn 3504. This conclusion is ! Supported by the legislative history of Section: 3504, which indicates that the government is reGuired to affirm or deny . Mnlavful electronic surveillance only upon a claim ye the ‘defendant with standing to chailenge the alleged unlewiul = Gadect," "HUR. No. 91-1549 YIst Cong. Zd Sess. (1970), 2 U.S. Congressional - and Administrative. Rews 4027 (1970). | rapheasis. supplied). . ve _ _ td ee