With the expanded use of wiretaps, courts will be faced in the coming years with questions concerning the contours of statutory authorization and the consequences of this expanded use into areas not traditionally associated with wiretap evidence. This is especially true in light of the fact that the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has already promised that its use of wiretaps will “continue to go up dramatically.” This Article attempts to highlight some of the consequences of failing to strictly adhere to the statutory requirements of Title III, most importantly the predicate offense and necessity requirements. It then suggests several ways to rebalance privacy interests in the larger context of wiretap use. Part II of this article will provide a brief history of wiretap jurisprudence leading up to the passage of Title III of the Crime Control Act in 1968. Part III will provide an overview of the current statutory scheme applicable to the use of wiretaps. Part IV will examine several recent trends in which wiretap evidence was used to obtain convictions for crimes not specifically listed in Title III and in which courts have adopted a constitutional analysis in determining whether evidence should be suppressed for a violation of the statutory-based necessity requirement. Finally, Part V will discuss several alternative approaches courts could adopt in enforcing the strictures of Title III in order to more appropriately balance privacy interests as Congress originally intended.

Included in

Evidence Commons