◆ SpookStack

2 — eae de a fy Nl microphone coverage despite the outright trespags involved, because it would be essential to the national welfare. An interim memorandum concerning the Department's study, dated December 9, 1953, was received from Assistant Attorney General Warren Olney, III. (Exhibit 3,4) This aaa Se «=f eawtsttas ts Weu LOS BLALS UL ECALSLIOUBR Law regarding microphone surveillances and reached conclusions, pertinent portions of which follow: "The evidence secured by a microphone surveillance and accompanied by the commission of a trespass may or may not be adnissible, depending» on _ the view taken by the Courts, in balancing the ‘reprehensible conduct of federal agents in securing the evidence against the nature of the crime and the weight of the evidence, of their prerogative to exciude the evidence by establishing a judicial rule of evidence, as in the McNabb decision, entirely apart from constitutional considerations. "In conclusion, this Division is constrained to emphasize what is aiready manifest from the above discussion and analysis, that the legal questions posed by the hypothetical situations in your memorandum of February 28, 1952, and related memoranda, partake of a novel character and, hence, are not susceptible to precise deterni- nation on the basis of precedent or authority. Moreover, our task, in formulating and applying a theoretical yardstick, is made more difficult by the distinct and continuing conceptual conflict within the Supreme Court itself, with respect to the application of the constitutional safecuards against ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ and the relative significance of an ‘illegal entry' or ‘trespass' in determining the adnissibility or non-admissibility of the evidence involved herein.