FLAHERTY v. ARKANSAS
415 U.S. 995 (1974)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

FLAHERTY v. ARKANSAS , 415 U.S. 995 (1974)

415 U.S. 995

Claude Earl FLAHERTY and Gene Whipple
v.
State of ARKANSAS.
No. 73-1169.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 1974

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice MARSHALL concur, dissenting.

Petitioners have been convicted of operating a gambling house, in violation of Ark.Stat.Ann. 41-2001. They challenge the introduction into evidence of tape recordings of telephone conversations which they claim were seized in violation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.

A warrant was issued to search Flaherty's home. After being admitted to the home, state officers place petitioners under arrest and without petitioners' consent monitored incoming phone calls placing bets for one hour. An officer attached a suction cup containing an induction coil to the telephone and, impersonating

Page 415 U.S. 995 , 996

petitioners,1 recorded the calls being made to the telephone. It is indisputed that the search warrant did not authorize the search and seizure of such calls, and the petitioners did not consent to the seizure of the calls. [Footnote 2] Petitioners argue that the police intent to record the calls without securing a search warrant is evidenced by the fact the police brought the induction coil and recording equipment with them when executing the warrant.

Petitioners claim that the seizures were made in violation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968, a detailed scheme created by Congress to allow the use of electronic surveillance by the States to intercept wire and oral communications only under stringently defined circumstances, clearly not met here. [Footnote 3] Under [415 U.S. 995 , 997]


Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.