Goldman v. United States - 316 U.S. 129, 62 S. Ct. 993 (1942)

Rule:

What is protected by 47 U.S.C.S. § 605 is the message itself throughout the course of its transmission by the instrumentality or agency of transmission. Words written by a person and intended ultimately to be carried as so written to a telegraph office do not constitute a communication within the terms of the Federal Communications Act until they are handed to an agent of the telegraph company. Words spoken in a room in the presence of another into a telephone receiver do not constitute a communication by wire within the meaning of the section. Letters deposited in the Post Office are protected from examination by federal statute, but it cannot rightly be claimed that the office carbon of such letter, or indeed the letter itself before it has left the office of the sender, comes within the protection of the statute. The same view of the scope of the Act follows from the natural meaning of the term "intercept." This word indicates the taking or seizure by the way or before arrival at the destined place. It does not ordinarily connote the obtaining of what is to be sent before, or at the moment, it leaves the possession of the proposed sender, or after, or at the moment, it comes into the possession of the intended receiver.

Facts:

Evidence against defendants was obtained after agents installed a detectaphone, a listening apparatus, in the wall of one defendant's office. Defendants filed a motion to suppress the evidence, alleging violation of § 605 of the Federal Communications Act (Act), specifically 47 U.S.C.S. § 605. The motion to suppress was denied, and defendants were convicted of conspiracy to violate § 29(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Act, found at 11 U.S.C.S. § 52(b)(5). The appellate court affirmed the convictions. Defendants challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Should the evidence have been suppressed for being violative of § 605 of the Federal Communications Act? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court held that the overhearing of what was said into a telephone receiver was not a violation 47 U.S.C.S. § 605, and the listening in the next room to the words of one defendant as he talked into the telephone receiver was not an interception of a wire communication within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, the court held that what was heard by the use of the detectaphone was not obtained by trespass or unlawful entry and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the defendants’ convictions were affirmed.