|
not involve a trespass. This would avoid
this argument in that it would go to things
like a laser beam that might be able to
pierce a wall and photograph within a
room what was going on in that room where
there was an intent to maintain privacy,
and that is why we wanted that "or other
invasions of privacy".
The other language that we criticize in
the change is "no warrant shall issue but
upon probable cause", which is classic lan-
guage that has again come down to us.
The Committee I do not think intended to
make a substantive change, but I think they
have made a substantive change and I
think it is important we return to the lan-
guage that was as carefully drafted as this
language in the R&P Recommendation.
THE PRESIDENT: I think before dis-
cussion continues the Chair should make an
explanatory comment with regard to this
section.
Most of the changes in the section
recommended by the Committee on Style
were not in the original draft. The Chair
suggested to the Committee that the
change be made because of the Chair's
understanding of the debate that had oc-
curred when the Committee Report was
presented and the belief that on the basis
of that debate it was intended to broaden
the Fourth Amendment rights and to have
a much broader prohibition against inter-
ception of communication and invasions,
"other invasions of privacy", than would be
limited to persons, houses, papers and
effects.
As Delegate Willoner has pointed out, the
Committee did not intend to have this
broader effect. They intended the prohibi-
tion against interception of communica-
tions and invasions of privacy to be limited
to the four things named in line 27.
Therefore, if that were the intention of
the Committee of the Whole also, the change
by the Committee on Style would indeed be
a change of substance.
The question before you, therefore, al-
though presented in terms of style, is a
question of substance, and you ought to
have that clearly before you.
As the section was drafted previously,
the prohibition against interception of com-
munications, and so forth, was narrower
than it would be under this section.
Delegate Bothe.
|
DELEGATE BOTHE: Mr. President,
may I ask that the question be divided be-
tween the first and second sentence?
As to the first, I believe there may be a
substantive issue.
As to the second, it is merely a question
whether the federal language should be
followed.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean as to the
change in lines 31 and 32?
DELEGATE BOTHE: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it can be
divided.
You do not want to divide the first sen-
tence as between "interceptions of commu-
nications" or "invasions of privacy", I
take it.
DELEGATE BOTHE: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The ques-
tion will for purposes of discussion and
voting then be divided. The first question
to be submitted to you will be whether you
adopt the recommendations of the Commit-
tee on Style as to amendments suggested
in lines 23 to 30, inclusive.
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. President,
as Delegate Willoner has suggested, this is
a committee recommendation or amend-
ment, but in light of what you said, I won-
der if the amendment would not be clearer
if we eliminated the commas in line 11 and
line 12 of the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not have an
amendment before us. We are considering
the section on page 2 as it is drafted.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Oh, then I would
hope that it would be rejected so we can
make this correction.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you
follow it, then.
The matter now before you is whether
or not to adopt the amendment suggested
by the Committee on Style in section 1.05,
or at least that portion of it down to and
including line 30. A vote no would leave
the language the way it was.
Now, I do not know whether that leaves
the commas where you want them or not.
You would have to tell me.
DELEGATE KIEFER: I do not believe
that it does. I think we might have to make
that additional correction.
|
