18 U.S.C. § 2515 — Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications

This section sets a rule about wiretapping evidence. Suppose a wire or oral communication has been intercepted. If the way it was disclosed would violate this chapter's rules, then the contents of that communication cannot be used as evidence. This ban covers no part of the contents. It also covers any evidence that was derived from that communication. The ban applies broadly. It applies in any trial or hearing. It applies before any court, grand jury, or government department. It applies before any officer, agency, or regulatory body. It applies before any legislative committee. It applies before any other authority of the United States, a state, or a local government. In short, this chapter can make disclosure of intercepted communications unlawful. If so, neither the communications themselves nor anything learned from them may be used as evidence. This applies anywhere in the federal or state legal system.

The source credit indicates that this section was added by Public Law 90-351, Title III, Section 802, enacted June 19, 1968, and published at 82 Stat. 216. The credit line reflects one amendment event overall—its original enactment—with no further modifications listed in the supplied record beyond that addition. Public Law 90-351 is widely known as the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, a major piece of federal criminal justice legislation enacted amid national concern over rising crime rates and civil unrest in the 1960s. Title III of that Act specifically addressed wiretapping and electronic surveillance, establishing a comprehensive federal framework governing the interception of wire and oral communications. This title is commonly understood to have been a legislative response to Supreme Court decisions of the era—particularly Katz v. United States (1967)—which extended Fourth Amendment protections to electronic surveillance and prompted Congress to create statutory standards for lawful interception. The exclusionary provision in this section is generally understood to serve as an enforcement mechanism for that broader framework: by barring the use of unlawfully intercepted communications as evidence, it was intended to deter violations of the interception procedures Title III established. However, the record supplied here does not include committee reports, floor debate, or other legislative history specific to this provision, so no more detailed or certain account of Congress's particular reasoning can be offered.