United States of America v. Melvin L. Freeman
524 F.2d 337 : 34 A.L.R. Fed. 271
In the United States Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit
Case Number 74-1696
Before Chief Judge Fairchild, Circuit Judge Sprecher, and Circuit Judge Tone
Decided on October 20, 1975

Relevancy of the case: Appeal against the conviction in a wire fraud case based on the violation of the appellant’s right to privacy

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Wire Fraud Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1343

Relevant Facts of the Case

• In August 1973, security officers at the Indiana Bell Telephone Company suspected that Freeman was using a blue box device. This device prevented long-distance telephone calls from being reflected in the telephone company’s billing records.
• Indiana Bell’s Security Officers applied a Dialled Number Recorder on their telephone line.
• On August 15, 1973, the security officers found that a blue box had been used. Subsequently, they attached a magnetic tape recorder to determine the blue box calls.
• Indiana Bell notified the FBI of their evidence, and the prosecution used the DNR and magnetic tape as core evidence for the conviction.
• The appellant, Freeman, has filed this appeal against his conviction.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The appellant’s counsel put forth two primary arguments:
  • The court’s indictment does not state an offence. The wire fraud statute only lays down provisions for the party being defrauded and not the party defrauding.
  • The evidence used by the court violated 47 U.S.C. § 605. The prosecution relied heavily on the DNR and the magnetic tape record, but it violated their right to privacy to observe their calls.

Opinion of the Bench

• The statute only requires a scheme to defraud and a telephone call to fulfil the provision. They held that the court’s indictment had stated an offence.
• The security’s taping only took place for 2 minutes to detect the use of the blue box, not when it was not in use. The court held that it was ‘necessary’ to find out how the appellant circumvented the system, and thus, the appellant’s right to privacy did not exist.

Final Decision

• The court affirmed the appellant’s conviction.

Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, prepared this case summary during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2024.