Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03164/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Joel Evans
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 1s 

United States C~rc ~f Appea 

Tenth C1rcu1t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG 51991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

THOMAS JOEL EVANS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-3164 

(D.C. No. 91-3095-R) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion under 28 u.s.c. 

§ 2255. We affirm. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3164 Document: 010110130246 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 1 
.,.,, 

Defendant Thomas Joel Evans asserts the admission of tape 

recordings and videotapes as evidence at his trial violated the 

Constitution and federal wire tap and oral interception laws. He 

maintains introduction of that evidence was prohibited because the 

government did not obtain an order from the district court 

authorizing the recordings. 

As the district court noted, no authorization for the 

interception of a conversation is required, and the defendant's 

individual rights are not violated, when one of the parties to the 

communication consents to the interception. The recordings that 

were introduced into evidence were made with such consent. 1 We 

agree with that analysis. Defendant has simply confused those 

cases dealing with nonconsensual interceptions with the facts of 

this case, making his legal authority irrelevant. 

Defendant contends the district court erred by not requiring 

the government to respond to his initial motion. Given the 

apparent invalidity of his claim and the court's summary 

disposition, however, any response would have been moot. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate sh,=1,ll issue forthwith . 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

1

The district court found the intercepted conversations were 

between defendant and an "informant" or "undercover agents." 

Defendant does not claim that finding is clearly erroneous. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3164 Document: 010110130246 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 2