As follow-up to an earlier thread, and Tim's post on LEOs, them and us, this excerpt from House Report 105-162: Background and Need for the Legislation Section 2512 of title 18, United States Code, prohibits the advertisement of any electronic, mechanical or other device, ``primarily useful for the purpose of surreptitious interception of wire, oral or electronic communications.'' This section was drafted with the intention of ``significantly curtailing the supply of devices * * * whose principal use is likely to be for wiretapping or eavesdropping.'' \1\ The Committee report listed several examples of devices which would fall under this prohibition, including microphones designed as wristwatches, cuff links, tie clips, fountain pens or cigarette packs.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 94-95 (1968). \2\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, legitimate law enforcement users were swept along with this prohibition on advertisements. Because of the restriction under Sec. 2512, companies which manufacture devices designed for wiretapping are not permitted to advertise the sale of their products to police departments. These companies are aware of cases in which a defendant was charged and convicted for violation of Sec. 2512, and although they would like to make the law enforcement community aware of their products, they do not wish to risk criminal sanctions.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See, e.g., United States v. Ron Wynn, 633 F. Supp. 595 (1986). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Law enforcement officers, particularly undercover officers, often use devices which would fall under the definition of a device ``primarily designed for surreptitious interception.'' It is a strange anomaly in the law that police departments have the authority to use electronic intercepts, but they may not receive mailings about improvements to such equipment. This exception is particularly significant since electronic interception equipment is frequently updated and improved. As an example, police officers and informants often use body microphones to record criminal activity. Covert devices are critical for the collection of evidence, yet many experienced criminals are aware of traditional attempts to disguise body transmitters. These transmitters have been miniaturized, and can now be disguised in some common facade unfamiliar to criminals. By not allowing companies which manufacture intercept equipment to advertise to police departments, police officers' lives are unnecessarily put at risk. H.R. 1840 will provide relief to companies which manufacture electronic interception equipment, by allowing them to advertise the availability of their products to agencies of the United States, States, or political subdivisions, so long as the recipient of the mailing is duly authorized to use such devices. The Committee appreciates the extensive input of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in drafting this legislation, to ensure that the bill was crafted as narrowly as possible while still achieving the intended effect. [End report excerpt] ----- For full report and bill: http://site108240.primehost.com/hr1840.txt (14K)