◆ SpookStack

4 nt of the United Slates, or to protect national secunily 4 Information against foreign intelligence activities, " . im t . oy + a = vy Om < THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT me a But the question is raised: Does the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement prohibit the President, acting without a court order, from authorizing an agency of the Federal Government to utilize physical entries directed against foreign powers and their agents? Recent wiretap cases shed light on this issue. Prior to 1967, ao the Supreme Court decided the legality of electronic surveillance by ) ‘deterraining whether or not a trespass was involved; the Fourth Amendment . was violated only if at the time of the installation there was a trespass on the premises. In the Katz case in 1967, however, the Court held that oral communications were protected from unreasonable surveillance by the Fourth Amendment and that the mandate of this Amendment required adherence to judicial process. The Fourth Amendment “governs not only - the seizure of tangible items, but [also] extends. . . to the recording of oral statements overheard without" trespass. Intentionally left open in-Katz, ‘supra, was the question of whether - ‘safeguards other than prior authorization by a magistrate would satisfy —_ the Fourth Amendment in a situation involving national security. The issue unresolved in Katz was partially faced by the Supreme Court in 18 United States v. United States District Court. There the Supreme Court’