Long v. United States

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6The defendant-appellant, Bryant Long, was convicted for unlawfully selling seven gallons of whiskey in unstamped containers, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5604 (a) (1). The United States introduced, over the defendant’s objections, evidence of conversations between Long and a government agent obtained through the use of electronic transmitting and receiving devices. A microphone strapped to the agent transmitted the conversations to other agents. Long contends that the use of electronic eavesdropping devices is unconstitutional and that evidence resulting from such devices is inadmissible.

¶7There is no merit to Long’s contention. Lopez v. United States, 1963, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462; On Lee v. United States, 1952, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S.Ct. 967, 96 L.Ed. 1270; Goldman v. United States, 1942, 316 U.S. 129, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L.Ed. 1322; Olmstead v. United States, 1928, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944; and Beatty v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 181. In Silverman v. United States, 1961, 365 U.S. 505, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734, the Supreme Court explicitly pointed out that On Lee, Goldman, and Olmstead were still applicable except where “the eavesdropping was accomplished by means of an unauthorized physical penetration into the premises occupied by the petitioners”. See also Katz v. United States, 9 Cir. 1967, 369 F.2d 130, cert. granted, 386 U.S. 954, 87 S.Ct. 1021,18 L.Ed.2d 102. No physical “intrusion” or “penetration” was involved in this case. See Jones v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 339 F.2d 419. The judgment is affirmed.1