DEAR MR. BAILEY:

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP57-00384R001000070080-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 24, 2003
• Sequence Number: 80
• Publication Date: October 15, 1947
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved FocJelea 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP57-0038WAR001 0070080-8
?7 LL OpyMUiICATICIIIS CM35SICN
WA5HMTON 25, D. Co
October ]5, 1917
Mr.FJ. Bail y
Assistant Director
Legislative Reference
S`recutive Office of the President
.Bureau of the Budget
Dear Mr. Baileys
This is in further reference to your letters of August 26,, 19147,
submitting for our consideration and comment two proposals by the Depart-
ments of Navy, War, and Justice, for amendment of Section 605 of the Cons-
miniations Act of 19314. It will be recalled that Section 605 contains
prohibitions against the unauthorised interception and divulgence or use
of wire or radio ccsamunications of a private nature, which would include,
for exasple, wire tapping and the use of information so obtained and
against the unauthorized divulgence by organizationts ssuuch as iephonni-
aad telegraph companies' of the existence
cations transmitted through their facilities. Mnactment of either of
the proposals advanced by the Navy, War, and Justice Departments as
national security measures would have the effect, inter ~ of makin
these prohibitions contained in Section 605 inapplicable
investigations made by those Departments pertaining to the national
security. Tho following comments upon these proposals are submitted for
your consideration.
Practices such as those prohibited under Section 6 05,, icu-
lady wire tapping, ha`Te this far been generally regarded
country with great disfavor. Although the Supreme Court in Olmstead V.
United States 277 U.S. 1438, held that the use of evidence o pr va
telephone conversations, intercepted by means of unauthorized wire tap-
ping, did not constitute a violation of the Fourth and !fifth Amendments
to the Federal Constitution, vigorous dissents to this holding were
registered by Justices Holmes, Brandeis, Butler and Stone. Moreover,
the policy underlying these dissents was subsequently enacted into law
by the adoption of Section 605 of the Communications Act and that policy
has been continued in effect until the present. Ih. ~a v. U, ted held
states. 302 U.S. 379, the Supreme Court
enforcement officials, were
that government avloyees, including law
included among the persons who were foi~us occasions since aia605 to ce enea ctme an ge
in the practice of wire-tappirg.
of Section 605 and announcement of the decision in the Nardone case in
1937, legislation has been proposed under which limited w PPing and
interception of radio eommadeation by law enforcement officers would
have been authorized (S. Res. 97, 77 Cong-j H. R. 22669 77 Congo;
H. R. 6919, 77 Cong?; H. R. 14228, 77 Cong.j H. J. Res. 273, 77 Oong.j
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP57-00384R001000070080-8
 Approved For.Qoleaj2003/11/04: IA-RDP57-0038414e0109070080-8
H. J. Nte. 283, 77 Cong.; H. J. Ra, 306 77 Cog.; H. J. Res. 32
V7 Cong.; H. J. Rae. !a]. 78 Cong.) NCn. of the.. proposals um .nsat.d,
and this was true even in =uW of these brills far sore stringent
conditions wiire proposed to be attached to the re3mt3on of SWUM 605
than is provided in the present proposals and even though at least six
of the bt1 a wore introduced during the tine this oo