remand, the Government purported to turn over to petitioner all of his own conversations which had been overheard by means of unlawful electronic surveillance." Petitioner argues that he was entitled to examine additional surveillance records because neither the Government nor the District Court was able to determine with certainty which conversations petitioner had been a party to. In fact, the District Court examined all the records in camera to ascertain if the Government had correctly identified petitioner's voice and had turned over to petitioner each conversation in which he had participated. Nothing in Alderman v. United States, Ivanov v. United States, or Butenko v. United States, ante, p. 165, requires an adversary proceeding and full disclosure for resolution of every issue raised by an electronic surveillance. On the contrary, an adversary proceeding and disclosure were required in those cases, not for lack of confidence in the integrity of government counsel or the trial judge, but only because the in camera procedures at issue there would have been an inadequate means to safeguard a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Here the defendant was entitled to see a transcript of his own conversations and nothing else. He had no right to rummage in government files. The trial court was asked to identify only those instances of surveillance which petitioner had standing to challenge under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and to doublecheck the accuracy of the Government's voice identifications. Under the circumstances presented here, we can 2 Petitioner sought disclosure only of his own conversations and apparently lacks standing as to any others. "We do not understand appellant to argue that he has a right to inspect logs or memos of conversations in which he was not a participant. Indeed, that point he wisely conceded before the district court." 398 F. 2d 558, 571. not hold that "the task is too complex, and the margin for error too great, to rely wholly on the in camera judgment of the trial court." Alderman v. United States, supra, at 182. MR. JUSTICE BLACK Concurs in the result. MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or disposition of this case. 394 U.S. March 24, 1969. SHAKESPEARE ET AL. v. ZERVOS. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 823. Decided March 24, 1969. 262 Cal. App. 2d 171, 68 Cal. Rptr. 481, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. PER CURIAM. The motions to dispense with printing the jurisdictional statement and for leave to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement are granted. The motion for transmittal of exhibits is denied. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. MAYHUE'S SUPER LIQUOR STORES, INC. v. MEIKLEJOHN, DIRECTOR, BEVERAGE DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. No. 904. Decided March 24, 1969. Appeal dismissed. Daniel S. Pearson for appellant. T. T. Turnbull, Assistant Attorney General of Florida, for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. March 24, 1969. WOODS v. CALIFORNIA. 394 U.S. APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. No. 1006. Decided March 24, 1969. Appeal dismissed. Burton Marks for appellant. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. BOEING CO. v. HAMM, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF ALABAMA. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. No. 1017. Decided March 24, 1969. 283 Ala. 310, 216 So. 2d 288, appeal dismissed. John Bingham for appellant. MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General of Alabama, and Willard W. Livingston and William H. Burton, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Burton Marks for appellant. Roger Arnebergh, Philip E. Grey, and Michael T. Sauer for the State of California. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. FEDERAL-BRYANT MACHINERY CO. v. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. No. 1069. Decided March 24, 1969. 41 Ill. 2d 64, 241 N. E, 2d 857, appeal dismissed. Harry H. Ruskin for appellant. William J. Scott, Attorney General of Illinois, and Francis T. Crowe, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. |