Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Eddie David Cox v. United States, 406 U.S. 934 (1972)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied Eddie David Cox's petition for a writ of certiorari regarding his conviction for bank robbery. Justice Douglas dissented from the denial. According to Justice Douglas, the wiretap order that led to the recordings of Cox's phone calls introduced at trial was limited to narcotics offenses, but the recordings included discussions of a bank robbery outside the scope of the order. Justice Douglas argued that once a wiretap is installed, it is not possible to selectively listen only to authorized conversations, making the recordings akin to an unconstitutional general warrant.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1972-05-15 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 406 U.S. 934 Docket: 71-5910

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court denied Eddie David Cox's petition for a writ of certiorari regarding his conviction for bank robbery. Justice Douglas dissented from the denial. According to Justice Douglas, the wiretap order that led to the recordings of Cox's phone calls introduced at trial was limited to narcotics offenses, but the recordings included discussions of a bank robbery outside the scope of the order. Justice Douglas argued that once a wiretap is installed, it is not possible to selectively listen only to authorized conversations, making the recordings akin to an unconstitutional general warrant.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    13 views2 pages

    Eddie David Cox v. United States, 406 U.S. 934 (1972)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court denied Eddie David Cox's petition for a writ of certiorari regarding his conviction for bank robbery. Justice Douglas dissented from the denial. According to Justice Douglas, the wiretap order that led to the recordings of Cox's phone calls introduced at trial was limited to narcotics offenses, but the recordings included discussions of a bank robbery outside the scope of the order. Justice Douglas argued that once a wiretap is installed, it is not possible to selectively listen only to authorized conversations, making the recordings akin to an unconstitutional general warrant.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    406 U.S.

    934
    92 S.Ct. 1783
    32 L.Ed.2d 136

    Eddie David COX


    v.
    UNITED STATES.
    No. 71-5910.

    Supreme Court of the United States


    May 15, 1972

    On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
    the Tenth Circuit.
    The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
    Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

    Petitioner was convicted of bank robbery after a trial in which the Government
    introduced over objection tape recordings of his telephone communications.
    These tape recordings had resulted from a federal court order which was issued
    pursuant to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
    1968, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2520, and which permitted federal agents to wiretap.
    Although the order was limited to seizures of communications relating to
    narcotics offenses, the eavesdroppers discovered that the subjects were
    discussing a bank robbery and those conversations were recorded despite the
    limited scope of the order.

    The petitioner challenged the introduction of these tapes on the ground that
    their subject matter was outside the scope of the warrant. The Court of Appeals
    rejected this argument, reasoning that once the device was legitimately spliced
    into the designated telephone lines anything overheard was in 'plain view' and
    therefore could be seized lawfully. Said the Court of Appeals: 'Once the
    listening commences it becomes impossible to turn it off when a subject other
    than one which is authorized is overheard.' With all respect, that is precisely the
    point. As I said in Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, 353, 87 S.Ct. 429, 17

    L.Ed.2d 394:
    3

    'Such devices lay down a dragnet which indiscriminately sweeps in all


    conversations within its scope, without regard to the nature of the
    conversations, or the participants. A warrant authorizing such devices is no
    different from the general warrants the Fourth Amendment was intended to
    prohibit.'

    I would grant this petition, reverse, and hold that Title III offends the Warrant
    Clause of the Fourth Amendment.

    Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice MARSHALL are of the opinion that
    certiorari should be granted.

    You might also like