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

submitted 58 years ago by Pub. L. 90-351 to r/title-18-CRIMES-AND-CRIMINAL-PROCEDURE · 75 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

This section bars the use of illegally intercepted wire or oral communications as evidence. It also bars evidence derived from those communications. The ban applies in any court, agency, or legislative proceeding.

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.

facts

- Location: Title 18 U.S.C. § 2515, part of a chapter governing wiretapping and electronic surveillance. - Heading: "Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications." - Length: 75 words in the body text. - Enacted: Added by Pub. L. 90–351, title III, § 802, on June 19, 1968 (82 Stat. 216). - Amendments: One amendment count noted; source credit contains a single legislative reference.

the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.

Source credit: (Added Pub. L. 90–351, title III, § 802, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 216.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit

1968Enacted · Pub. L. 90-351 · 82 Stat. 216

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.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

no arguments yet — make the first case