◆ SpookStack

aie: Cc) . . a . ; gippear to ba “apsropelate ievithe sovern-— : selosest to the investigation [to} we a iles and submit | affidavits sat Firaing ¢ or Beny=: am - Setuave been checked, " In‘xe’ eNanichyse9 F. ae FF __ Se £% =| i “Ra. 770, 77%. eed i761 an eae» regard, avin ent | ment i at was such person! s phone. Saag ws eae ra In other words, os 4 a Sy. af A, using =m outside phone, engaged: sin a telephone ‘conversa Sig tion with B, whose phoma was under electronic Surveillance by ms mrateroryeea the F.B. Ls" end A was ‘identified during the conversation, then this fact what ‘be Placed onan index: card bearing A's ‘Rar ‘even though he was, Bot, the. immediate Subject | ‘of the. sur- veillance, “Consequently, @ Teference ‘to an index. card bear- ' “ing A's & name would disclose whether there had been any: elec- " tromde”s Surveillance of any conversation in vhich A was 2 par- ‘theapast Nae a would be: helpful for the court to have ‘this in- } Eormatitin 33-to) the procedure utilized, in as precise & £orm as reasonably possible, in order: to confidently decide whether — | the. governtent ‘5: response is adequate. under Section 3504. in A addition, . euch information would also provide a basis for ? evaiuating the “argurent advanced by government counsel at oral ‘tgunent: that an agency check is 28 burdensoze process. t is ait too easy to state in conclusory fashion that the ‘under. - — | . i. taking, is onexous, The ‘project. could conceivably tura out to | Le - AY. a 5.) ', Courts have interpreted the statute ‘to require thel * #.Governnent to make it reasonably clear that its deniel is basee | on sufficient af bnowledg @,to be meaningful.” In re Quim, 525 | EBD DA ¢ PAE I CLE! 27 - V7” peewee ene eee oe . me ee es me he en