United States v. Harvey
540 F.2d 1345
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Case Number 75-1846
Before Senior Circuit Judge Van Oosterhout, Circuit Judge Lay and Circuit Judge Webster
Decided on August 24, 1976

Relevancy of the case: Reasonability of interception for the protection of carrier rights in a wire fraud conviction

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Wire Fraud Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1343
• The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The District Court convicted the appellant of wire fraud for utilising a “blue box” to place long-distance calls without incurring charges. Southwestern Bell identified it by analysing toll-free calls made to HHarvey’snumber through computer analysis.
• The Hekimian Dial-Number Recorder and voice recorder were used to monitor the appellant’s telephone activities. This led to the discovery of a potential suspect named “Roland” and the identification of additional individuals involved in the wire fraud scheme.
• The police secured the search warrant based on the collected evidence. This led to the seizure of cassette tapes and a “black box” from
• The appellant raised his concerns regarding the search warrant’s scope and challenged the admissibility of evidence.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the wire interception surpassed the normal course of Southwestern Bell’s business and the authority granted to employees. It ultimately deviated from the primary objective of protecting carrier rights by solely focusing on gathering evidence for criminal prosecution.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that the wire interception was justifiable under Section 2511(2)(a)(i) for the protection of the carrier’s rights. Surveillance activities were within the normal course of the carrier’s business, authorised by the Security Council.

Opinion of the Bench

• Wire interception was not unreasonable in duration and was necessary to protect the carrier’s rights.
• Monitoring activities were within the normal course of Southwestern Bell’s business and authorised by the Security Council. The search and seizure fell within the scope of the warrant, as cassette tapes constituted functional parts of the “blue box” operation.

Final Decision

• The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the conviction.