ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

18 U.S.C. § 2517Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications

submitted 58 years ago by Pub. L. 90-351 to r/title-18-CRIMES-AND-CRIMINAL-PROCEDURE · 821 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

This section says when officers may share or use information from a lawfully intercepted communication. They may share it with other officers or use it themselves, if doing so serves their duties. They may also testify about it in court. Intercepted communications about a different, unnamed crime may still be used, once a judge approves. Officers may also share threat-related or foreign-intelligence information with other officials under set limits.

(1) An investigative or law enforcement officer who legally obtained, through wiretapping methods authorized by this law, knowledge from an intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication — or evidence derived from it — can share that information with another investigative or law enforcement officer, as far as needed for that officer's official duties. (2) That same officer can also use the contents themselves, as far as needed for their own official duties. (3) Anyone who legally received information about an intercepted communication, or evidence derived from it, can disclose the contents while testifying under oath or affirmation in a proceeding held under the authority of the United States, a state, or a local government. (4) A communication that was already legally privileged — like an attorney-client conversation — doesn't lose that privileged status just because it was intercepted, whether the interception itself was done properly or improperly under this law. (5) If an officer, while legally intercepting communications, happens to pick up conversations about crimes other than the ones named in the court's authorization or approval order, the contents and any evidence from them can still be disclosed or used as allowed under paragraphs (1) and (2). That content can only be used in testimony under paragraph (3), though, if a judge later approves it, based on finding that the interception was otherwise done properly under this law — and the request for that approval must be made as soon as practical. (6) An investigative or law enforcement officer, or a government attorney, who legally obtained such information can share it with other federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security officials, but only the parts that qualify as foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or foreign intelligence information as those terms are separately defined in federal law — and only to help that official do their job. Whoever receives information this way can use it only as necessary to carry out their official duties, and remains subject to any rules limiting further unauthorized disclosure. (7) An officer, or other federal official acting in their official capacity, who legally obtained such information can disclose the contents or derived evidence to a foreign investigative or law enforcement officer, as far as appropriate for the performance of either official's duties — and that foreign officer can likewise use or disclose it as far as appropriate for their own duties. (8) An officer, or other federal official acting in their official capacity, can disclose such contents or evidence to any appropriate federal, state, local, or foreign government official if it reveals a threat of an actual or potential attack, or other serious hostile act, by a foreign power or its agent; domestic or international sabotage or terrorism; or spying by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or its agent — whether inside the United States or elsewhere — for the purpose of preventing or responding to that threat. Anyone who receives information this way can use it only as necessary for their official duties, subject to disclosure limits, and any state, local, or foreign official who receives it must follow guidelines jointly issued by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence.

facts

- Codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2517, titled "Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications." - Originally enacted by Pub. L. 90–351, title III, § 802, on June 19, 1968 (82 Stat. 217). - Contains 821 words across eight numbered subsections addressing disclosure and use rules. - Amended six times, most recently by Pub. L. 117–347, title III, § 323(a)(1)(A), Jan. 5, 2023. - Source credit lists five amending statutes in addition to the original enacting law.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain
(1)

Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.

(2)

Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom may use such contents to the extent such use is appropriate to the proper performance of his official duties.

(3)

Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, any information concerning a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter may disclose the contents of that communication or such derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any proceeding held under the authority of the United States or of any State or political subdivision thereof.

(4)

No otherwise privileged wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this chapter shall lose its privileged character.

(5)

When an investigative or law enforcement officer, while engaged in intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications in the manner authorized herein, intercepts wire, oral, or electronic communications relating to offenses other than those specified in the order of authorization or approval, the contents thereof, and evidence derived therefrom, may be disclosed or used as provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section. Such contents and any evidence derived therefrom may be used under subsection (3) of this section when authorized or approved by a judge of competent jurisdiction where such judge finds on subsequent application that the contents were otherwise intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Such application shall be made as soon as practicable.

(6)

Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to any other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to the extent that such contents include foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)),1 or foreign intelligence information (as defined in subsection (19) of section 2510 of this title), to assist the official who is to receive that information in the performance of his official duties. Any Federal official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person’s official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.

(7)

Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or other Federal official in carrying out official duties as such Federal official, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents or derivative evidence to a foreign investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure, and foreign investigative or law enforcement officers may use or disclose such contents or derivative evidence to the extent such use or disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of their official duties.

(8)

Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or other Federal official in carrying out official duties as such Federal official, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents or derivative evidence to any appropriate Federal, State, local, or foreign government official to the extent that such contents or derivative evidence reveals a threat of actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, domestic or international sabotage, domestic or international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power, within the United States or elsewhere, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such a threat. Any official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person’s official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information, and any State, local, or foreign official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only consistent with such guidelines as the Attorney General and Director of Central Intelligence shall jointly issue.

Source credit: (Added Pub. L. 90–351, title III, § 802, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 217; amended Pub. L. 91–452, title IX, § 902(b), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 947; Pub. L. 99–508, title I, § 101(c)(1)(A), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1851; Pub. L. 107–56, title II, § 203(b)(1), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 280; Pub. L. 107–296, title VIII, § 896, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2257; Pub. L. 117–347, title III, § 323(a)(1)(A), Jan. 5, 2023, 136 Stat. 6206.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 1968Enacted · Pub. L. 90-351 · 82 Stat. 217
  • 1970Amended · Pub. L. 91-452 · 84 Stat. 947
  • 1986Amended · Pub. L. 99-508 · 100 Stat. 1851
  • 2001Amended · Pub. L. 107-56 · 115 Stat. 280
  • 2002Amended · Pub. L. 107-296 · 116 Stat. 2257
  • 2023Amended · Pub. L. 117-347 · 136 Stat. 6206
The source credit shows that this section was added by Public Law 90–351, title III, § 802, enacted June 19, 1968, and published at 82 Stat. 217. The credit further establishes a series of subsequent amendments: by Public Law 91–452 (1970), Public Law 99–508 (1986), Public Law 107–56 (2001), Public Law 107–296 (2002), and most recently Public Law 117–347 (2023). This pattern indicates that the provision has been revisited by Congress repeatedly over more than five decades, with particular clustering of amendments around national security and intelligence-related legislation in the early 2000s. Historical context: Public Law 90–351 is the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and Title III of that Act is commonly understood to be the federal wiretapping statute, enacted amid concerns in the 1960s about organized crime, rising crime rates, and the need to establish clear judicial standards for electronic surveillance following Supreme Court decisions on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. Title III is generally understood to have been intended both to authorize law enforcement's use of wiretaps under controlled conditions and to protect individual privacy by restricting unauthorized interception and disclosure. The record does not establish the specific legislative intent behind this particular section's provisions on disclosure and use, nor does it explain the purposes behind each subsequent amendment, including those following the September 11 attacks. Readers seeking that detail should consult the cited Public Laws and their legislative histories directly.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case