Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Berger v. New York — Opinion of the Court

New York's statute lacks this particularization. It merely says that a warrant may issue on reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be obtained by the eavesdrop. It lays down no requirement for particularity in the warrant as to what specific crime has been or is being committed, nor "the place to be searched," or "the persons or things to be seized" as specifically required by the Fourth Amendment. The need for particularity and evidence of reliability in the showing required when judicial authorization of a search is sought is especially great in the case of eavesdropping.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Berger v. New York — Opinion of the Court

Federal law, as we have seen, prohibits interception and divulging or publishing of the content of wiretaps without exception. [6] In sum, it is fair to say that wiretapping on the whole is outlawed, except for permissive use by law enforcement officials in some states; while electronic eaesdropping is-save for seven states-permitted both officially and privately. And, in six of the seven states, electronic eavesdropping ('bugging') is permissible on court order.
The law, though jealous of individual privacy, has not kept pace with these advances in scientific knowledge.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature