SURVEILLANCE, CRIME & PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE 2.2. Law of Telephonic Surveillance Communication Privacy According to LaFave(1993), though the Supreme Court never authorized Title III, since it was passed by Congress in 1968, U.S.C.A. 2510-2520, Osborn v. U.S. by (1966) upheld a judicial authorized use of a secret agent using a tape recorder; and Berger v. N.Y. (1967) holding the eavesdropping law unconstitutional-as well as-- Katz v. U.S.(1967) stating that it was unconstitutional if a warrant is not obtained for the wiretapping. Under Title III, as long there is probable cause, and issuance of a warrant is authorized by Attorney General designated down to Assistant Attorney General of the criminal division, the destination and privacy to which a telephonic message and content is to be monitored must follow certain rules that of Title III---which Pikowsky (2003: 13) refers to as the “Modern Federal Statutory Limitations on Wiretaps.” As LaFave, Israel and King summarizes the statutory limitation (1999, Pikowsky, 2003:14): 1) There must be probable cause, contingent on the premises that all means of investigations have been exhausted. 2) Identification of the suspect, and telephonic communication between persons, groups or parties must be enumerated and made cognizant. 3) The period of time (“minimization”) must be recorded, and limits must be set according to how the telephonic interception must be proceed according Title III, and the up-dated form of it-Electronic Communication Privacy Act (ECPA). 3) Extensions of an order may be granted for like Periods, but only by resort to procedures required required in the initial order.