U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 223— WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE

18 U.S.C. § 3504

Litigation concerning sources of evidence

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States—(1) upon a claim by a party aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act, the opponent of the claim shall affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act;(2) disclosure of information for a determination if evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act occurring prior to June 19, 1968, or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act occurring prior to June 19, 1968, shall not be required unless such information may be relevant to a pending claim of such inadmissibility; and(3) no claim shall be considered that evidence of an event is inadmissible on the ground that such evidence was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act occurring prior to June 19, 1968, if such event occurred more than five years after such allegedly unlawful act.(b) As used in this section “unlawful act” means any act the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device (as defined in section 2510(5) of this title) in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any regulation or standard promulgated pursuant thereto.(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title VII, § 702(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 935.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesCongressional Statement of Findings

Pub. L. 91–452, title VII, § 701, Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 935, provided that: “The Congress finds that claims that evidence offered in proceedings was obtained by the exploitation of unlawful acts, and is therefore inadmissible in evidence, (1) often cannot reliably be determined when such claims concern evidence of events occurring years after the allegedly unlawful act, and (2) when the allegedly unlawful act has occurred more than five years prior to the event in question, there is virtually no likelihood that the evidence offered to prove the event has been obtained by the exploitation of that allegedly unlawful act.”

Applicability to Proceedings

Pub. L. 91–452, title VII, § 703, Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 936, provided that: “This title [enacting this section and provisions set as notes under this section] shall apply to all proceedings, regardless of when commenced, occurring after the date of its enactment [Oct. 15, 1970]. Paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of section 3504, chapter 223, title 18, United States Code, shall not apply to any proceeding in which all information to be relied upon to establish inadmissibility was possessed by the party making such claim and adduced in such proceeding prior to such enactment.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 195 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: United States v. Muhtorov, 20 F.4th 558 (10th Cir. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Muhtorov, 20 F.4th 558 (10th Cir. 2021). · cites it 8× “93 18 U.S.C. § 3504 ........................”
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (T-112), 597 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2010). · cites it 12× “Following 18 U.S.C. § 3504 (a)(1), the United States promptly wrote the corporations, stating that they "were not and are not a subject of electronic surveillance pursuant to Title III" but denying that appellants were entitled to notification of any other surveillance.”
United States v. Sherrie Tuggle Apple, United States of Am. v. Stacy Nevin Apple, A/K/A Dr. Stachel Pomme, 915 F.2d 899 (4th Cir. 1990). · cites it 7× “18 U.S.C. § 3504 (a)(1). Section 3504(b) establishes the link with Title III, defining “unlawful act” as “the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device (as defined in section 2510(5) of this title) in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any…”
United States v. William Buffington, Ceariaco Cabrellis, & Booker T. Cook, Defendants, 815 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1987). · cites it 6× “On March 23, 1983, the district court ordered the government to provide appellants with police reports and other documents relating to the suppression issue pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3504 . The government only partially complied with the order and declined to produce the…”
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985). · cites it 2× “Forsyth learned of the wiretap in 1972, when, as a criminal defendant facing unrelated charges, he moved under *514 18 U. S. C. § 3504 for disclosure by the Government of any electronic surveillance to which he had been subjected.”
Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41 (1972). · cites it 4× “II Our conclusion that § 2515 is an available defense to the contempt charge finds additional support in 18 U. S. C. § 3504 , enacted as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, 84 Stat.”
United States v. Pedro Saade, United States of Am. v. Carlos Zenon Rodriguez, 652 F.2d 1126 (1st Cir. 1981). · cites it 4× “17 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3504 (a)(1), when a “party aggrieved” claims that evidence that may be used against him is tainted by illegal wiretapping, the Government must “affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act.”
United States v. Violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections 231, 241, 245, 371, 1361, 2101, 2102, 452 F.2d 1239 (D.C. Cir. 1971). · cites it 10× “18 U.S.C. § 3504 . 9 Still, the government insists that none of these procedures are available to these appellants because they were not defendants in a criminal prosecution, but merely witnesses before a grand jury.”
United States v. Francisco Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974). · cites it 4× “According to Toscanino, the telephone company employee was eventually arrested in Uruguay for illegal eavesdropping and was indicted and imprisoned.”
In Re United States of Am. v. Jane Kember & Morris Budlong, Mary Sue Hubbard, Henning Heldt, Richard Weigand, & Gregory Willardson, 648 F.2d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1980). · cites it 4× “On July 16, 1980, appellants requested that the Government conduct a search for electronic surveillance of appellants or their counsel in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3504 (a) (1976). In response to this request, the Government admitted that the FBI conducted electronic…”
United States v. Briana Waters, 627 F.3d 345 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “Waters bases her request for the production of surveillance materials exclusively on 18 U.S.C. § 3504 . That section requires the government to disclose whether or not a party was the victim of illegal surveillance.”
United States v. John William Butenko & Igor A. Ivanov. Appeal of Igor A. Ivanov, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974). · cites it 6× “The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 provides, in relevant part, that taint from surveil-lances prior to the effective date of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 shall be determined by disclosure and hearing only if an in camera proceeding convinces the…”
Show all 195 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 3504(a)(3) — 1 case
United States v. John William Butenko & Igor A. Ivanov. Appeal of Igor A. Ivanov, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974). “The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 provides, in relevant part, that taint from surveil-lances prior to the effective date of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 shall be determined by disclosure and hearing only if an in camera proceeding convinces the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.