◆ SpookStack

does not vitiato the evidence obtained thereby and that micronhono survoilicnce is not equivalent to in iiiocai soarcnh and seizure, * Gold.an v. United States, vlv U.S. 129. > "t6é. Where a microphone installation is made in a hall or roon subject to public hire. In this regard it will be appreciated 12 you will offer an opinion in the cvent the installation is made prior o ‘to the actual hiring of the hall and after the actual hiring of the hall by tho person in question, and where the installation is made with the perniscsion ox the management and/or an a result of trospass.' "In all of the situationg envisaged within the foresoing question, it would seem thet the evidence ds adaigsible cn the vrinecinloe heretofore discussed. Thore is clearly no doubt as to its adnissibility in the event thet the installation is made prior to the actual hiring of the hall and with the permission of tha management. While the question ‘' ds not ecually clear in the other instance, it : would scca that on the general principle heretofore - @iscussed, the evidence obtained under all of the ‘ pots of facts covered by case No. 6, should be i ' admissible." It should be emphasized that Mr. Holtzoff relied heavily on the decision in Goldman v. United States, particularly that portion of the decision which held that a microphone surveillance was not equivalent to an illegal search and seizure prohibited by the Fourth Amcndnent. i} “*Undorlining added for emphasis ee ee %, .