Re: Disturbing statistics on wiretaps

[Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>]

smb@research.att.com writes

> 	 The same is true of e-mail over the Internet--there is no
> 	 statutory exclusionary rule that would prvent its
> 	 admissibility in court. It is at least theoretically possible,
> 	 however, to exclude illegally seized communications of these
> 	 sorts using a "pure 4th Amendment" (nonstatutory) exclusionary
> 	 rule.
> 
> 	 Don't hold your breath, though.
> 
> Do you really think that?  One could argue, fairly strongly, that the
> rules set forth in the ECPA have created an expectation of privacy,
> and that a violation of that expectation would be exactly the violation
> of the 4th Amendment that the Supreme Court addressed in the 1967
> decision that led to the original wiretap provisions in the Omnibus
> Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.
 
What's your point? One can argue all sorts of things. Are you saying you
have reason to believe an argument of this sort is likely to be a winner? 

Me, I just work from what I know about 4th Amendment caselaw.



--Mike