Earl Warren

Name: Rathbun v. United States — Opinion of the Court
Author: Earl Warren

Rathbun v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Rathbun v. United States — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Earl Warren. It explores elements such as telephone, sender and extension.

Quotes from Rathbun v. United States — Opinion of the Court (Earl Warren)

Earl Warren, Rathbun v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ And so, a secretary is fairly to be deemed as much of an automatic instrument in the context of our problem as a tape recorder. Surely a police officer called in to facilitate the detection of crime is not such an alter ego. His participation in telephone communications when not authorized by the sender occupies precisely the same position that it occupied in the Olmstead case when this Court sanctioned the practice, and in the Nardone cases where this Court rigorously enforced the prohibition by Congress of what theretofore was a lawful practice. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Rathbun v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ It is unreasonable to believe that Congress meant to extend criminal liability to conduct which is wholly innocent and ordinary.
Common experience tells us that a call to a particular telephone number may cause the bell to ring in more than one ordinarily used instrument. Each party to a telephone conversation takes the risk that the other party may have an extension telephone and may allow another to overhear the conversation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Rathbun v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ The telephone extension is a widely used instrument of home and office, [6] yet with nothing to evidence congressional intent, petitioner argues that Congress meant to place a severe restriction on its ordinary use by subscribers, denying them the right to allow a family member, an employee, a trusted friend, or even the police to listen to a converation to which a subscriber is a party. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Rathbun v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ Some courts have held that the statute proscribes the use of an extension telephone to allow someone to overhear a conversation without the consent of both parties. [4] Others have concluded that the statute is inapplicable where one party has consented. [5] We hold that Section 605 was not violated in the case before us because there has been no 'interception' as Congress intended that the word be used. Every statute must be interpreted in the light of reason and common understanding to reach the results intended by the legislature. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Rathbun v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ The communication itself is not privileged, and one party may not force the other to secrecy merely by using a telephone. It has been conceded by those who believe the conduct here violates Section 605 that either party may record the conversation and publish it. [7] The conduct of the party would differ in no way if instead of repeating the message he held out his handset so that another could hear out of it. We see no distinction between that sort of action and permitting an outsider to use an extension telephone for the same purpose. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Rathbun v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ This case concerns the issue of whether the contents of a communication overheard on a regularly used telephone extension with the consent of one party to the conversation are admissible in federal court. [1] Petitioner was convicted of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 875 (b) and (c) , 18 U.S.C.A. § 875 (b, c) for transmitting an interstate communication which threatened the life of one Sparks in order to obtain from him a stock certificate which Sparks held as collateral for a loan. On March 16, 1955, petitioner, who was in New York, spoke by telephone with Sparks, who was in Pueblo, Colorado. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, Rathbun v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ Federal Communications Commission, 'Statistics of the Communications Industry in the United States for the year ended December 31, 1956.'↑ See United States v. Polakoff, 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 888, 889:↑ 48 Stat. 1100, 47 U.S.C. § 501, 47 U.S.C.A. § 501. Additional violations are punishable by the same fine and not more than two years' imprisonment, or both. ”

Earl Warren

Summary

Quotes from Rathbun v. United States — Opinion of the Court (Earl Warren)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature