Title 18 Rad.Disbursement/Phones

Federal Law
Federal US Law title 18 part 1 chpt 113B ..2332h…. Radiological Dispersal Device
(a) Unlawful Conduct.—
(1) In general.— Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce, construct, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use—
(A) any weapon that is designed or intended to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; or
(B) any device or other object that is capable of and designed or intended to endanger human life through the release of radiation or radioactivity.
. . .
(c) Criminal Penalties.—
(1) In general.— Any person who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not less than 25 years or to imprisonment for life.
(2) Other circumstances.— Any person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (a), uses, attempts or conspires to use, or possesses and threatens to use, any item or items described in subsection (a), shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or imprisoned for life.
(3) Special circumstances.— If the death of another results from a person’s violation of subsection (a), the person shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by imprisonment for life.

Federal Law
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2511

Federal laws and privacy laws prohibit against telephone “tapping” without a court order.

The Title reads:

Title 18 Section 2511 (I) (a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act makes it unlawful for “any person … [to] intentionally intercept . . . any wire . . . communication” without a court order.

The legislative history of this law is:

(from Wikipedia):
It was passed in part as a response to the Supreme Court decisions Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967) and Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), which the Church Committee Report on the FBI’s COINTELPRO program described as holding “that the Fourth Amendment did apply to searches and seizures of conversations and protected all conversations of an individual as to which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy”.

Read More:

Title III of The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Wiretap Act)
18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-22, as amended by Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), by the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, by the USA PATRIOT reauthorization acts in 2006, and by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008

Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, also known as the “Wiretap Act”:

prohibits the unauthorized, nonconsensual interception of “wire, oral, or electronic communications” by government agencies as well as private parties,
establishes procedures for obtaining warrants to authorize wiretapping by government officials, and
regulates the disclosure and use of authorized intercepted communications by investigative and law enforcement officers.

Background. Congress passed Title III in response to congressional investigations and published studies that found extensive wiretapping had been conducted by government agencies and private individuals without the consent of the parties or legal sanction. Congress found that the contents of these tapped conversations and the evidence derived from them were being used by government and private parties as evidence in court and administrative proceedings.

Title III originally covered only “wire” and “oral” communications but was significantly revised by Title I of the ECPA in 1986 to include electronic communications. The ECPA includes two additional titles to protect the privacy of stored communications and regulate the use of “pen register” and “trap and trace” devices. See the ECPA.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure extends to the interception of communications and applies to all conversations where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. See Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967) and Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

General Provisions. Title III prohibits the intentional actual or attempted:
interception,  use, disclosure, or “procure[ment] [of] any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept” any wire, oral, or electronic communication.

Exceptions: The Act provides exceptions for operators and service providers for uses “in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service” and for “persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511.

The Act also prohibits the use of illegally obtained communications as evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 2515.

Amendments. Title III has been significantly amended by the ECPA, the CALEA, the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, the USA PATRIOT reauthorization acts in 2006, and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

Privacy and Other Civil Liberties. Title III requires Federal, state and, other government officials to obtain judicial authorization for intercepting “wire, oral, and electronic” communications such as telephone conversations and e-mails. It also regulates the use and disclosure of information obtained through authorized wiretapping. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2516-18.

From this reading of the title, it would seem that fourth amendment protections extend to telephone, cellular telephone and telecommunications.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s