Yep. And there is no need to invoke RICO to get a sureveillance warrant. All the government has to show is probable cause.
For domestic surveillance, the Katz case introduced a requirement to obtain a warrant for domestic surveillance. See also Berger v. New York and Kaiser v. New York.
Check Douglas and Brennan's rhetoric in the Katz case. Black's dissent is not as farfetched as one might think, as SCOTUS had expressly ruled that wiretapping (without a warrant) was not a search, and therefore not subject to a requirement to be "reasonable," in Olmstead. Maybe we're headed back to the future on the interpretation of the 4th amendment.
Okay....I am a Black backer in the Katz case...he makes so much sense, because his is using the EXACT language of the 4th Amendment...but, stops cold anyone who wants to use "improve technology" as a reason to "change"...
by, explaining that even the patriots that fought the Revolutionary War used "surveillance" by eavesdropping behind walls, and bushes to learn the plans by "the enemy", and had they felt that listening through walls or behind bushes violated someones privacy, they would have made this a need for judical oversight.
I also noticed, too, that even the other justice excluded the POTUS and AG when it came to surveillance for national security in their concurrence.
BTW...isn't it the 4th Amendment's "right to privacy" that abortion advocates and the court in Roe v. Wade used to justify a woman's right to "choose"???