United States v. Guglielmo, 64 CR 505.
Citation | 245 F. Supp. 534 |
Decision Date | 29 July 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 64 CR 505.,64 CR 505. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Nick GUGLIELMO, and Joseph B. Delmonico, a/k/a Joey D., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty. Northern District of Illinois and Dennis O'Brien, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the government.
Edward J. Calihan, Jr., Ann R. Lavin, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
Defendants in a motion to suppress have placed in issue here a telephone company "pen register" system, by alleging that in the investigation and detection of the crime charged in this case, use of such a pen register constituted a violation of § 605 of the Federal Communications Act (Title 47, U.S.C.).
The facts related to this issue are for the most part uncontroverted.
The pen register is a mechanical device attached on occasion to a given telephone line, usually at central telephone offices. A pulsation of the dial on a line to which the pen register is attached records on a paper tape dashes equal to the number dialed. The paper tape then becomes a permanent and complete record of outgoing calls as well as the numbers called on the particular line. Immediately after the number is dialed and before the line called has had an opportunity to answer (actually the pen register has no way of determining or recording whether or not the calls are answered) the pen register mechanically and automatically is disconnected. There is neither recording nor monitoring of the conversation.
In this case the Illinois Bell Telephone Company at the request of agents of the Internal Revenue Service installed a pen register on the lines used by the defendants. (The indictment alleges defendants were engaged in the business of accepting wagers.) Neither the defendants nor the parties called knew of or acquiesced in this Internal Revenue Service request.
Pen register tapes which recorded the calls from defendants' lines were turned over by the Illinois Bell Telephone Company to the Internal Revenue Service agents who in turn used these records to further develop leads and to conduct gambling investigations resulting in the obtaining of the search warrants which produced the instant indictments.
§ 605 of Title 47, U.S.C., reads in pertinent part as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Application of United States
...concluded that pen registers were embraced in the prohibition of Section 605. See Chief Judge Campbell's opinion in United States v. Guglielmo, (N.D.Ill.1965) 245 F.Supp. 534, affirmed sub nom. United States v. Dote (7 Cir. 1966), 371 F.2d 176 (opinion by Chief Judge Hastings), and United S......
-
Hodge v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.
...interception prohibited by clause 2 of Section 605. (See also United States v. Dote (7th Cir. 1966) 371 F.2d 176; United States v. Guglielmo (N.D.Ill.1965) 245 F.Supp. 534, aff'd in Dote, supra. But cf. United States v. Gallo (2d Cir. 1941) 123 F.2d 229, 231 (Where the court upheld the disc......
-
U.S. for Order Authorizing Installation and Use of Pen Register, Application of
...concluded that pen registers were embraced in the prohibition of Section 605. See Chief Judge Campbell's opinion in United States v. Guglielmo, (N.D.Ill.1965) 245 F.Supp. 534, affirmed sub nom. United States v. Dote (7 Cir. 1966), 371 F.2d 176 (opinion by Chief Judge Hastings), and United S......
-
U.S. v. Vento
...the line called has had an opportunity to answer. There is no recording or monitoring of the conversation. See United States v. Guglielmo, 245 F.Supp. 534, 535 (D.D.C.1965).2a We note that Donald Woodruff, a/k/a "Chips," was tried separately and convicted. His conviction was affirmed by jud......
-
Toward a criminal law for cyberspace: a new model of law enforcement?
...note 182. (184.) See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sbordone, 678 N.E.2d 1184, 1188 (Mass. 1997). (185.) See, e.g., United States v. Guglielmo, 245 F. Supp. 534, 535 (N.D. Ill. (186.) See, e.g., People v. Superior Court, 598 P.2d 877, 882 (Cal. 1979) (noting that it was not improper to bring burgla......