The criminal prohibitions against illegal electronic eavesdropping contained in Title III are part of the same act which permits federal law enforcement officers to engage in court-authorized electronic surveillance. Congress viewed the criminal sanctions and the court authorization provisions as two sides of the same coin. The retention of the government's authorization to engage in court-authorized electronic surveillance may depend on its vigorous enforcement of the sanctions against illegal electronic eavesdropping. Accordingly, it is the Department's policy to vigorously enforce these criminal prohibitions.

The Department's overall prosecutive policy under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 is to focus primarily on persons who engage or procure illegal electronic surveillance as part of the practice of their profession or as incident to their business activities. Less emphasis should be placed on the prosecution of persons who, in the course of transitory situations, intercept communications on their own without the assistance of a professional wiretapper or eavesdropper. This does not mean that such persons are never to be prosecuted, but simply that this type of prosecution is not a major thrust of the Department's enforcement program.

Most illegal interceptions fall into one of five categories: (1) domestic relations, (2) industrial espionage, (3) political espionage, (4) law enforcement, and (5) intra-business. The largest number of interceptions, more than 75 percent, are in the domestic relations category. It is the Department's policy to vigorously investigate and prosecute illegal interceptions of communications which fall within the industrial and political espionage, law enforcement, and intra-business categories. Generally such violations will have interstate ramifications which will make federal prosecution preferable to state prosecution. Nevertheless, in cases where the federal interest is slight, it may be appropriate to defer to state prosecution.

Illegal interceptions arising from domestic relations disputes generally present less of a federal interest and, therefore, local prosecution is more appropriate. However, this does not mean that federal prosecutors should abdicate responsibility for prosecuting such interceptions. Indeed, in view of the preponderance of this kind of interception, no enforcement program can be effective without the initiation of some prosecutions for deterrence purposes. United States Attorneys should develop effective liaison with local prosecutors in order to convince them to shoulder their share of the burden.

Within the category of domestic relations violations, primary attention should be given to those instances in which a professional is involved, such as a private detective, attorney, moonlighting telephone company employee, and supplier of electronic surveillance devices. United States Attorneys should feel free to pursue these cases or refer them to local prosecutors; however, no professional should escape prosecution when a prosecutable case exists.

Domestic relations violations which do not involve a professional interceptor are the lowest priority cases for federal prosecution. Although local prosecution is normally preferable, when local prosecutors are unwilling to pursue the case, resort to federal prosecution may be appropriate. Nevertheless, violations of this type will sometimes prove to be of insufficient magnitude to warrant either federal or state prosecution. In such cases, other measures may prove sufficient, for example, a civil suit for damages (18 U.S.C. § 2520), suppression of evidence (18 U.S.C. § 2515), or forfeiture of the wiretapping or eavesdropping paraphernalia (18 U.S.C. § 2513).

Disturbed persons often suspect that they are the victims of illegal interceptions. Consequently, a complaint which is based solely on suspicious noises heard on the telephone normally does not merit further investigation if the initial line check fails to produce independent evidence of a tap.