Earl Warren

“ The Nardone decisions laid down the underlying premises upon which is based all subsequent consideration of Section 605. The crux of those decisions is that the plain words of the statute created a prohibition against any persons violating the integrity of a system of telephonic communication and that evidence obtained in violation of this prohibition may not be used to secure a federal conviction. ”

“ The above principle has for its purpose enhancement of the proper administration of criminal justice. To impute to the statute anything less would give it 'a self-defeating, if not disingenuous purpose.' [11] Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 340-341, 60 S.Ct. 266, 267-268, 84 L.Ed. 307.
As an alternative argument to support the judgment below, respondent urges that the interception and divulgence in this case were no violation of Section 605 because the wiretap was placed by state agents acting in accordance with the law of New York. ”

“ The rationale of that case is that despite the plain prohibition of Section 605, due regard to federal-state relations precluded the conclusion that Congress intended to thwart a state rule of evidence in the absence of a clear indication to that effect. In the instant case we are not dealing with a state rule of evidence. Although state agents committed the wiretap, we are presented with a federal conviction brought about in part by a violation of federal law, [7] in this case in a federal court. ”

“ No narcotics were found, but hidden in the car were eleven five-gallon cans of alcohol without the tax stamps required by federal law. The brother and the alcohol were turned over to federal authorities and this prosecution followed. ”

“ They are designed as standards for federal agents. The fact that their violation may be condoned by state practice has no relevancy to our problem.' Id., 350 U.S. at page 217, 76 S.Ct. at page 294.↑ The first divulgence appearing on the record occurred in court, but we do not mean to imply that an out-of-court violation of the statute would not also lead to the invalidation of a subsequent conviction.↑ It has remained an open question in this Court whether evidence obtained solely by state agents in an illegal search may be admissible in federal court despite the Fourth Amendment. ”