## Facts

- Burton N. Pugach was a New York state pretrial detainee under indictment in Bronx County on serious charges and awaiting trial.
- New York officials obtained a state court order authorizing a wiretap of Pugach’s telephone under New York constitutional and statutory provisions.
- The interceptions and subsequent use or disclosure of the communications allegedly contributed to Pugach’s arrest and indictment.
- Pugach claimed the interception and divulgence violated the Federal Communications Act, particularly 47 U.S.C. §§ 605 (prohibiting unauthorized interception and divulgence) and 501 (making willful violations misdemeanors), even if permissible under state law.
- Pugach filed three consolidated federal applications: (1) habeas corpus against the Bronx County Prison warden to prevent interference from the state prosecution, (2) mandamus to compel the United States Attorney to prosecute state officials for federal wiretap offenses, and (3) requests for federal arrest warrants for a police officer, an assistant district attorney, and a state judge, plus a search warrant for the Bronx District Attorney’s premises.
- Prior efforts to obtain federal relief to stop use of wiretap evidence in the state case had been rejected by higher federal courts.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court should grant pretrial habeas corpus relief to a state detainee to prevent or interfere with an ongoing state prosecution allegedly supported by evidence obtained in violation of 47 U.S.C. §§ 501 and 605.
2. Whether a federal court may issue mandamus compelling the United States Attorney to institute federal criminal prosecutions for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Act.
3. Whether a private individual may obtain federal arrest and search warrants against state officials and a district attorney’s office based on alleged federal wiretap offenses.

## Decision

- The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
- The court denied the petition for mandamus against the United States Attorney.
- The court denied the applications for federal arrest warrants and the search warrant.
- The court declined to intervene in the pending state criminal case, leaving evidentiary and statutory issues to the state courts in the first instance, subject to later review through ordinary channels.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts generally will not interfere with pending state criminal prosecutions at a preliminary stage absent extraordinary circumstances.
- Pretrial federal habeas corpus is not a device to litigate, in advance of trial, evidentiary objections and related claims that can be raised and reviewed in the state proceedings.
- Charging decisions are committed to executive discretion; a private party has no judicially enforceable right to compel federal prosecution by mandamus.
- Federal arrest and search warrants are not available to a private complainant as a means to initiate or control federal criminal process; such steps proceed through appropriate federal prosecutorial and investigative channels.

## Conclusion

The district court refused to use habeas, mandamus, or warrant procedures to disrupt an ongoing state prosecution allegedly involving wiretap evidence that may have violated federal law, holding that state proceedings should run their course and that private parties cannot force federal prosecutions or obtain federal warrants to pursue criminal enforcement objectives.


Pugach v. Klein, 193 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)