FOLLOWING WIRETAP RULES

Electronic surveillance is a powerful tool, one that law enforcement
must use prudently to safeguard the privacy of innocent citizens.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Russell's recent ruling -- which bars
prosecutors from using wiretap evidence in a major drug case -- is a
firm reminder of the importance of following the rules before tapping
private conversations. It is believed to be the first time a federal
judge has issued such a ruling in Kentucky.

The front-page headline -- which noted that 12 drug suspects could walk as a
result of the decision -- could serve to inspire anger against the judge.

Certainly, it is deeply troubling that a man who seems to be a drug
kingpin for this region may not be convicted as a result of the ruling.

But Judge Russell deserves praise, not condemnation, for having the
courage to decide as he did. It is more than a bit useful to note that
the defendants who may benefit from the ruling were represented by a
team of seven former prosecutors.

They understand that specific procedures must be followed to obtain a
wiretap warrant. In this case, an FBI agent went to another federal
judge, who was allegedly given misleading information about steps that
had been taken to justify the tap.

Those steps (which include using traditional investigative procedures
first unless they would prove too dangerous) are not mere
formalities.

They are vital constitutional safeguards that the Fourth Amendment
provides for individual liberty and protection of those accused, but
not yet convicted, of wrongdoing.

Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1928: "Our government teaches the
whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker,
it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto
himself; it invites anarchy."

That truth is the same today. Judge Russell deserves praise for having
the courage to reassert it.