|
I am not sure. There will be some such
general article.
DELEGATE DUKES: And it will be
voted on as a whole?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
DELEGATE DUKES: Then I will not
offer my amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Again I have to point out to you that
this is assuming the Convention either
changes Rule 59 or suspends it.
DELEGATE DUKES: Yes, sir, I un-
derstand that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Apparently there are no amendments as
to style except for the desire of Delegate
Willoner with respect to section 1.05.
The question therefore arises on the
adoption of the amendments to Committee
Recommendations R&P-1 and R&P-2 pro-
posed by the Committee on Style other than
those with respect to section 1.05 as to
which a separate vote has been requested.
Do you request a separate vote on 1.05,
Delegate Willoner?
DELEGATE WILLONER: I do, Mr.
Chairman.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other
sections as to which any delegate desires
to vote separately? If not, the Chair will
submit to you, first, for adoption the
amendments proposed by the Committee on
Style with respect to section 1.05, and
then, following that, submit to you on one
motion the amendments with respect to all
the other sections.
The Chair understands that Delegate
Willoner desires to oppose all of the recom-
mendations of the Committee on Style for
amendments in section 1.05. Is that correct,
Delegate Willoner?
DELEGATE WILLONER: That is cor-
rect, Mr. Chairman.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes
you to speak to the question. The question
will now arise on the adoption of the com-
mittee amendments recommended with re-
spect to section 1.05. Delegate Willoner is
speaking in opposition to those amend-
ments.
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: I may also
say I am speaking on behalf of our Com-
|
mittee. In drafting this particular section,
we followed as closely as possible the lan-
guage of the Fourth Amendment to the fed-
eral Constitution.
The changes that have been made depart
from that, and, as has been pointed out
earlier in the questioning period, amount to
a substantive change.
One of the intentions in drafting this as
closely as possible to the Fourth Amend-
ment language of the federal Constitution
was to drag along the cases that have inter-
preted this language over the past two hun-
dred years. While it is quite true that
you may be able to more artfully draft this
section, when this section has a history of
some two hundred years it is important
to keep it in as exact language as possible.
I might point out that the change "and
to secure against unreasonable intercep-
tions" perhaps broadens this much further
than we intend to broaden it.
Since this language has no interpreta-
tion behind it, it might prohibit the testi-
mony of conversations made in the presence
of one individual. It could prohibit the re-
cording of a conversation, for example,
where a police officer would go into an
interview, say, with a buyer of marijuana,
and he would have this on his own person
as corroborative of the testimony. This
might conceivably prohibit that type of in-
terception.
The language as drafted was extremely
carefully drafted and it was checked over
by at least two constitutional professors
of law.
What happened was that "the right of
the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects again unreason-
able" is to be modified by "searches,
seizures and interception of their com-
munications".
In other words, that "interceptions of
communications" refers back to the first
four categories of "persons, houses, papers
and effects", and this is the language that
has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.
We are really expanding it in a sense to
make their decision somewhat easier.
Then we have added "or other invasions
of their privacy" to include those concepts
brought out since the Berger case. Unfor-
tunately this amendment was put in with-
out my being able to get ahold of the
Katz case.
I understand the decision by Justice Black
was based on the idea that interception did
|
