See United States v. King, 335 F.Supp 523 (1971). See also the original DOJ manual and related amendments. If you can, pick up a copy of Eavesdropping On Trial, '74. It's an insightful and easy read with good historical footnotes. It's an odd book, in that it has gained in relevancy through the years. Originally, Congress was predisposed to outlaw electronic surveillance altogether. Law enforcement fought for decades to get it. Then, we came up with organized crime (some still say they "invented" it). Title III was part of the "law and order" agenda, before we characterized things as "war on." It's effectiveness in regard to organized crime was even questioned, as that was the stated target of Title III. It was the time of COINTELPRO, to give you an idea of the political climate. Most of the questions raised in '74 (soon after the act's '68 passage and state implementation), remain unanswered. This suggests that the Title III scheme itself is flawed. The forward by Sen. Sam J. Ervin, Jr. is worth a frame: ------------------------------------------------------- ''The history of American liberty has been a continuing struggle between the desire for security and the human striving for personal freedom. Too often it appears that the choice is easy -- for example, that the issue of law and order is one of balancing the rights of society against the rights of criminals. But the choice is never as easy as that deceptive formulation suggests. The great challenge of our constitutional system is the continuing reconciliation of these two strong competing interests. Without law there can be no true liberty, but a constant and exclusive preoccupation with security is the death of human liberty. This was recognized by American patriots as long ago as 1775: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The citizen who truly honors liberty knows that there are no easy choices. The public leader who is true to his obligation to inform and educate the citizenry recognizes that he must shun emotional appeals. It is a great disservice to the public to succumb to the temptation to make issues of crime and liberty a political football. Unfortunately, politicians forever fall victim to the temptation, especially in recent years. <snip>...These issues are too important to be left to the "expert" -- be he a lawyer, legislator, judge, or prosecutor. While the issues are complex, this is no arcane subject which the private citizen can safely leave to others. Few people are neutral about issues such as eavesdropping, but the public is not well served by rhetoric. As difficult as it may be to address the subject fairly, openly, and accurately, to do so is necessary if the public is to be well served. [...] Words to haunt Congress by? Only time will tell. ~Aimee