The Communications Act prohibits intercepting radio communications "except as authorized by" the Wiretap Act.
Mr. Rajaratnam's briefs focus almost exclusively on whether the government acted improperly in seeking authority under the Wiretap Act to record his telephone conversations.
The Wiretap Act says it is "not unlawful to" intercept unencrypted communication, but it does not give specific permission for the interception of unencrypted communications.
The federal Wiretap Act requires prosecutors to establish the "necessity" to listen to private conversations by showing, among other things, that less invasive investigative techniques have proved unsuccessful.
Some F.C.C. staff members argued strongly that Google should be charged with a violation of the Communications Act, and the agency and Google spent weeks debating whether Google had violated the Wiretap Act or the Communications Act.
Mr. Rajaratnam argues that Judge Richard J. Holwell of the Federal District Court in Manhattan should have suppressed the wiretaps because the government's affidavit seeking authorization to listen to his telephone calls did not meet the "necessity" requirement imposed under the Wiretap Act.
In his motion seeking bail, Mr. Rajaratnam's outlined his main legal argument that the government did not comply with the requirements of the Wiretap Act in seeking authorization to listen to his telephone conversations.
It argued that Google should be investigated for potential violation of the Wiretap Act, which, it said, "prohibits the intentional interception, use, or disclosure of wire and electronic communications unless a statutory exception applies".
In documents filed in federal court in Manhattan, Mr. Rajaratnam's lawyers argued that the United States Attorney's office resorted to wiretaps without first demonstrating that conventional investigative techniques were inadequate, as required under the Wiretap Act of 1968.
In a 71-page opinion, Judge Naomi Buchwald of Federal District Court threw out the suit accusing the firm of violations of the Electronic Privacy Act, the Wiretap Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
