This article addresses the problems raised by the Title III minimization requirement with particular emphasis on the Supreme Court's decision in Scott. Section I outlines the provisions of Title III that govern the issuance of eavesdropping warrants and the use of derivative evidence. Section II discusses the minimization provision and the definitional problems it presents. Section III analyzes judicial treatment of the minimization provision in light of Scott, and factors that have been held to affect a monitoring agent's ability to minimize interceptions. Section IV discusses judicial approaches to minimization litigation with respect to the problems of standing, guidelines for minimization hearings, and appropriate remedies. Finally, Section V offers alternative solutions to the difficult problems raised by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the minimization requirement.
Clifford S. Fishman, The Minimization Requirement in Electronic Surveillance: Title III, the Fourth Amendment, and the Dread Scott Decision, 28 AM. U. L. REV. 315 (1979).