Does Section 605 as amended of the Criminal Code prohibit the prosecution from presenting evidence of telephone conversations intercepted by police officers?

One court has held that 605 as amended renders evidence of telephonic communications intercepted by police officers inadmissible. In People v. Trief, 65 Misc.2d 272, 317 N.Y.S.2d 525 (1970), aff'd mem., 37 A.D.2d 553, 323 N.Y.S.2d 659 (1971), the prosecution sought to introduce evidence obtained from telephone conversations intercepted by police officers. The prosecution conceded that prior to the 1968 amendment, the intercepted conversations would have been inadmissible, but contended that the amendment rendered them admissible. The court squarely rejected this view, holding that under 605 as amended, the intercepted conversations must be suppressed.¹ Cf. Commonwealth v. Coviello, Mass., 291 N.E.2d 416 (1973).