Summary

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Lee v. Florida — Opinion of the Court

Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act speaks, not in terms of tapping a wire, but in terms of intercepting and divulging a communication. The State concedes that the police 'divulged' the petitioners' conversations within the meaning of the statute. But, it argues, the police cannot be deemed to have 'intercepted' the telephone conversations, because people who use party lines should realize that their conversations might be overheard.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Lee v. Florida — Opinion of the Court

That has proved to be a vain hope. Research has failed to uncover a single reported prosecution of a law enforcement officer for violation of § 605 since the statute was enacted. [12] We conclude, as we concluded in Elkins and in Mapp, that nothing short of mandatory exclusion of the illegal evidence will compel respect for the federal law 'in the only effectively available way-by removing the incentive to disregard it.' Elkins v.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature