Goldstein v. United States
1942 U.S. LEXIS 670, 316 U.S. 114, 62 S. Ct. 1000 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who was not a party to an unlawfully intercepted telephone communication lacks standing to object to the admission of testimony from witnesses whose cooperation was allegedly induced by divulging the contents of those communications to them.
Facts:
- Petitioners, Goldstein and others, were indicted for mail fraud and conspiracy related to a scheme to defraud insurance companies by presenting false claims for disability benefits.
- Government agents unlawfully intercepted numerous telephone messages as part of their investigation.
- Messman and Garrow, alleged co-conspirators in the scheme, were confronted by the government with the contents of these intercepted telephone messages.
- Messman and Garrow subsequently confessed to their involvement and agreed to turn state's evidence, testifying for the government.
- None of the petitioners were parties to the specific telephone communications that were used by the government to induce Messman and Garrow to testify.
Procedural Posture:
- Goldstein and other petitioners were indicted in federal court for mail fraud and conspiracy.
- At the opening of their trial, petitioners moved to suppress all records and transcripts of intercepted telephone messages, all evidence obtained by their use, and the testimony of any witness whose testimony was obtained or aided by such messages.
- A preliminary hearing was conducted by the trial judge, consistent with the procedure outlined in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338.
- The trial judge ordered all records and transcripts of intercepted messages suppressed, as well as all evidence directly obtained as a result of such messages.
- The trial judge refused to order suppression of the testimony of witnesses whose memories had been refreshed or aided by the messages, reserving final decision on that part of the motion until trial.
- At trial, Government witnesses testified that wiretapping had not furnished clues used in preparing the case, and Messman and Garrow were permitted to testify over petitioners' objection.
- Petitioners were convicted, and the judgments were affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Circuit Court of Appeals held that petitioners lacked standing to object to the divulgence of messages because they were not parties to the communications, or alternatively, that the testimony was not a 'divulgence' within the meaning of § 605 but evidence procured through past divulgence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual who was not a party to an unlawfully intercepted telephone conversation have standing under Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act to object to the admission of testimony from witnesses who were induced to testify by the government's use of those intercepted communications?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Roberts
No, an individual who was not a party to an unlawfully intercepted telephone conversation does not have standing to object to the admission of testimony from witnesses induced to testify by the government's use of those communications. The Court held that the protection afforded by Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act, much like that of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, is personal to the victim of the unlawful act. Since the petitioners were not parties to the intercepted communications, they were not the 'victims' of the alleged divulgence or use by the government to induce the testimony of Messman and Garrow. The Court reasoned that to extend the sanction for violations of the Communications Act to allow a non-party to object would go beyond any precedent in applying the implied sanction for Fourth Amendment violations. The statute was intended to protect the sender of the message, who also has the power to authorize its divulgence. Even assuming the government's use of the communications to induce testimony constituted a violation of the Act, such use did not render the testimony inadmissible against a person not a party to the original message, in line with the settled common law rule. The Act itself provides specific sanctions for violations, separate from an exclusionary rule for third parties.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Murphy
Yes, individuals prejudiced by the use of unlawfully intercepted communications should have standing to object, even if they were not parties to the communications themselves. Justice Murphy argued that Section 605 explicitly forbids not only the interception and divulgence of private messages without sender consent but also the 'use' of information so acquired by any person not entitled to it. The government's actions in using the illegal wiretaps to secure the crucial testimony of Messman and Garrow were a clear violation of this 'use' prohibition, as graphically illustrated by the assistant U.S. attorney's statements. The dissent asserted that the public policy underlying Section 605, to protect society against the evils of wire-tapping, necessitates the exclusion of evidence obtained through such unlawful use, in line with the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine established in the second Nardone case. It is immaterial who raises the objection, as the exclusionary rule serves Congress's command that society should not be plagued by such practices. The analogy to Fourth Amendment standing is inappropriate because Section 605 is broader, prohibiting all unauthorized interception, divulgence, or use, not just 'unreasonable' ones. Furthermore, the existence of criminal sanctions in Section 501 does not negate the exclusionary rule, as prior Supreme Court decisions in Nardone and Weiss had already established.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrowed the scope of the exclusionary rule under Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act, introducing a standing requirement analogous to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. By limiting who can object to evidence derived from illegal wiretaps, the Court made it more difficult for defendants not directly involved in the intercepted conversations to challenge such evidence, thereby favoring the admissibility of relevant testimony. The decision underscores the Court's reluctance to expand exclusionary rules to protect third parties, implicitly prioritizing the presentation of evidence over a broader deterrent effect on law enforcement misconduct in this specific context. This ruling effectively restricts the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine under § 605 to only those individuals who were direct parties to the unlawfully intercepted communications.
