## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 15 49

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el la nt

, * App eal fro m th e Uni te d

* St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r

v. * th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

. *

Carl os Lom el i; Man ue l Her na nd ez, *

* App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 16 , 20 11

Fi le d: Apri l 1 8, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d B YE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ap p el la nt

, th e Uni te d St at es Gov ern m en t, ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t's 1

or de r ad op ti ng th e fin di ng s and su pp le m en ta l fin di ng s and reco m m en da ti on s of the

m ag is tra te jud ge gr an ti ng Carl os Lom el i's an d M a n u e l Hern an de z's m ot io ns to 2

su pp res s ev id en ce ob ta in ed as a res ul t of a wire ta p. The go ve rn m en t cl ai m s th at th e

The Hon or ab le Ly le E. St ro m , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1

Neb ras ka

.

The Hon or ab le F.A. Gos se tt

, III, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 2

Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.d i s t r ic t co ur t erre d in ho ld in g th at th e go ve rn m en t's ob jecti on s to th e m ag is tra t e jud ge 's in it ia l fin di ng s an d reco m m en da ti on were m oo t, an d by refu si ng to co ns id er

th e m eri ts of it s arg um en ts ag ai ns t su pp res si on of th e au th or iz ed wire ta p. W e affi rm

.

I. BACKGRO UND

In O ct ob er 20 09

, in fu rth eran ce of an on go in g na rco ti cs in ve st ig at io n, an

Ass is ta nt Uni te d Stat es Att or ne y (AUSA) for the Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka su bm it te d an

ap pl ic at io n fo r in te rcep ti on of wire co m m un ic at io ns to a fed eral jud ge who ap pr ov ed

th e req ue st ed wire ta p. App li cat io ns fo r an o r d e r a u th or iz in g or ap pr ov in g th e

in te rcep ti on of wire or or al co m m un ic at io ns ("wi ret ap ap pl ic at io ns ") are go ve rn ed by

fed eral la w. Und er th e la w, wire ta p ap pl ic at io ns m ay on ly be au th or iz ed by a di sc ret e

nu m be r of pe op le sp eci al ly de si gn at ed by th e Att or ne y Gen eral

, who are en um erat ed

in th e fed eral st at ut e. 18 U.S.C. § 25 16 (1 ). Add it i o na ll y , al l wire ta p ap pl ic at io ns

m us t id en ti fy th e in ve st ig at iv e or la w e nf or cem en t of

fic e rs m ak in g th e ap pl ic at io n,

an d in di cat e th e Dep art m en t of Ju st ic e (DOJ) of fic er au th or iz in g th e ap pl ic at io n. 18

U.S.C. § 2 51 8( 1) (a).

The ap pl ic at io n at is su e he re ge ne ral ly co m pl ie d wit h al l req ui rem en ts

, ex cep t

t h a t e v e n th ou gh th e ap pl ic at io n in di cat ed th at "[a ]ttac he d to th is App li cat io n a r e

co pi es of th e Att or ne y Gen eral 's or de r of Sp eci al Des ig na ti on an d th e Mem or an du m

of Aut ho riz at io n ap pr ov in g th is App li cat io n," no ne wer e a t t a c h ed

. The en ti re

pa rag rap h i n t he ap pl ic at io n t ha t i s at is su e to da y read s:

Pu rs ua nt to Sect io n 25 16 of Tit le 18

, Uni te d St at es Co de

, th e Att or ne y Gen eral of th e Uni te d St at es ha s sp eci al ly de si gn at ed th e a p p r op ria te
of fic ia ls of th e Cri m in al Div is io n to ex erci se th e po wer co nf erre d on th e Att or ne y G e n e r a l by Sect io n 25 16 of Tit le 18

, Uni te d St at es Co de

, to

au th or iz e th is App li cat io n, un de r th e po wer de si gn at ed to hi m by sp eci al

de si gn at io n of th e Att or ne y Gen eral pu rs ua nt to Ord er nu m be r 30 55

- 20 09 of F eb ru ary 26 , 20 09 , and an ap pr op ria te off ic ia l o f th e Cri m in al

-2

-Div is io n, ha s au th or iz ed th is App li cat io n. Att ach ed to th is App li cat io n

are co pi es of th e Att o r n e y G e n eral 's or de r of Sp eci al Des ig na ti on an d

th e Me m or an du m

of Au th or iz at io n a pp ro vi ng th is App li cat io n.

Defen da nt s C arl os Lom el i an d Man ue l Hern an de z fil ed m ot io ns to su pp res s

fo ll owi ng th ei r arre st s fo un de d up on ev id en ce ob ta in ed du rin g th e au th or iz ed

wire ta ps

. The m ot io ns , in pa rt, cl ai m ed th at th e wire ta p ap pl ic at io n fai le d to co m pl y

wit h fed eral la w. On D e c e mb e r 9, 20 10

, th e m ag is tra te jud ge fil ed a rep or t an d

reco m m en da ti on

. As rel ev an t he re, th e m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d th at th e

m ot io ns to su pp res s be gr an te d as to al l ev id en ce ob ta in ed as a res ul t of th e wire ta p.

The m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu d e d t h at th e go ve rn m en t's fai lu re to in cl ud e th e

au th or i z i ng fo rm s was no t a m ere te ch ni cal de fect an d th us th e wire ta p ap pl ic at io n

was in su ffi ci en t o n i ts face

.

Ove r Lom el i's an d Herna nd ez's ob jecti on , th e m ag is tra te jud ge reo pe ne d th is

m at te r an d co nd uc te d a su pp le m en ta l he ari ng on Ja nu ary 5, 2 0 1 1. Dur in g th e

he ari ng , th e go ve rn m en t ent ered in to ev id en ce the two m is si ng do cu m en ts fro m th e

wire ta p ap pl ic at io n, sh owi ng th at th e pe o p l e s i g ni ng of f on th e wire ta p ha d th e

au th or it y to do so

. On Ja n u a r y 17

, 20 11

, fo ll owi ng th e su pp le m en ta l he ari ng , th e

m ag is tra te ju d ge fil ed it s su pp le m en ta l fin di ng s an d reco m m en da ti on

. In it

, th e

m ag is tra te jud ge ack no wled ge d th at bo th pa rti es ' ob jecti on s to th e in it ia l rep or t an d

reco m m en da ti on w e r e pe nd in g be fo re th e di st ric t jud ge an d no fin al jud gm en t ha d

be en en te red

. The m ag is tra te jud ge al so hi gh li gh te d th e fact th at to -d at e th e

go ve rn m en t ha d ne ve r m ad e an y at te m pt to pr od uc e th e au th or iz at io n do cu m en ts th at

were to be at ta ch ed t o t h e w i r et ap ap pl ic at io n, di d no t pr ov id e th e m is si ng

at ta ch m en ts to Lom el i an d Hern an de z du rin g di sc ov e r y, a n d "ap pa ren tl y m ad e no

effo rt to lo cat e th e m is si ng do cu m en ts pr io r to th e su pp res si on he ari ng ." Rat he r th an

de nyin g th e reh eari ng on th is ba si s ou tri gh t, th e m ag is tra te jud ge reo pe ne d th e m at te r

"o nl y to th e ex te nt ne ces sa ry

to pro vi de Ju dg e St ro m

wit h a co m

pl et e rec or d."

-3

-The m ag is tra te jud ge th en , ho wev er, di sc us se d th e su bs ta nt iv e is su e a s to

whe th er th e om is si on of th e at ta ch ed do cu m en ts was m erel y a te ch ni cal de fect

. The

m ag is tra te jud ge he ld a se co nd ti m e th at th e go ve rn m en t's fai lu re to at t a ch th e

refe ren ced au th or iz at io n do cu m en ts was no t m erel y a te ch ni cal de fect an d was fat al

to it s cl ai m

. The m ag is tra te jud ge po in te d ou t th e pa uc it y of reco rd ev id en ce th at th e 3

id en ti ty of th e of

fic er who au th or iz ed th e ap pl ic at io n was so m eh ow act ua ll y or ti m el y

di sc lo se d to th e is su in g jud ge de sp it e th e om is si on of th at in fo rm at io n fro m th e

ap pl ic at io n. Thu s, th e m ag is tra te jud ge he ld th at co nt rary to Si xt h Ci rcu it pr eced en t

rel ie d up on by th e go ve rn m en t in su pp or t of it s arg u ment th at no t ev ery

no nc om pl ia nc e wit h th e rel ev an t wire ta p ap pl ic at io n st at ut es m an da te s su pp res si on ,

se e Uni te d St at es v. Gray

, 52 1 F.3 d 51 4, 52 4 (6 th Ci r. 20 08 ), th e na tu re of th e de fect

he re was no t te ch ni cal no r su rm ou nt ab le fo r si m il ar reas on s. Acco rd in g l y , th e

m ag is tra te jud ge on ce ag ai n g ran te d d efen da nt s' m ot io ns to su pp res s.

The di st ric t co ur t is su ed it s o rd er o n F eb ru ary 8 , 2 01 1. As rel ev an t he re, th e

co ur t ack no wled ge d th at th e go ve rn m en t fil ed ob jecti on s to th e m ag is t r a t e jud ge 's

in it ia l fin di ng s an d reco m m en da ti on bu t ov erru le d th e ob jecti on s "as m oo t in as m

uc h

as th e m ag is tra te jud ge reo pe ne d th e reco rd ." The co ur t no te d th at no ob jecti on s were

fil ed to th e su pp le m en ta l fin di ng s an d reco m m en da ti on an d th ey were th us "ap pr ov ed

an d ad op te d." It th en ru le d th at "[d ]efend an t Lom el i's m ot io n to su pp res s is gr an te d

in pa rt; th e m ot io n to [s u p p r e s s ] e v i de nc e ob ta in ed as th e res ul t of th e Octo be r 22

, 20 09

, Neb ras ka W ire ta p is su pp res se d," an d li ke wis e th at "Her na nd e z' m ot io n to

su pp res s is gr an te d; th e m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce ob ta in ed as th e r e s u lt of th e

Octo be r 22 , 20 09 , Nebr as ka W ire ta p i s s up pr es se d." The g ov ern m en t ap pe al s.

"Pa uc it y " m ay be a m is no m er he re, as th e reco rd is who ll y de vo id of an y su ch 3

ev id en ce.

-4

-II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Sta nda rd o f Rev ie w

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws su pp res si on is su es un de r a two -p ro ng ed st an da rd of rev ie w,

rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t's fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s le ga l co nc lu si on s

de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . She ik h, 3 67 F.3d 75 6, 7 62 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

B. Pro cedu ra l I ss ue

On ap pe al

, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co nd uc t a de

no vo rev i e w w h e n it ad op te d th e m ag is tra te jud ge 's su pp le m en ta l fin di ng s an d

reco m m en da ti on

. It cl ai m s th e co ur t th us fai le d to ad dr es s th e go ve rn m en t's pe nd in g

ob jecti on s reg ard in g th e m ag is tra te jud ge 's reco m m en da ti on su pp res si ng th e wire ta p

ev id en ce.

I n t h e en d, no m at te r wha t th is co ur t de te rm in es reg ard in g whe th e r t h e

go ve rn m en t was r e qu ire d to ren ew it s in it ia l ob jecti on or fil e ob

jecti on s an ew

fo ll o w i ng th e is su an ce of a m ag is tra te jud ge 's su pp le m en ta l fin di ng s an d

reco m m en da ti on , or wha t st an da rd of rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t em pl oyed, an y ru li ng

on th is di sc ret e pr oc ed ur al m at te r do es no t effe ct ou r de no vo re v i e w o f t h e le ga l

co nc lu si on s th at are cen tra l to th e in st an t an al y si s. See Uni te d S t a t e s v

. Barr ag an , 37 9 F.3 d 52 4, 52 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) ("We re v i e w d e no vo th e di st ric t co ur t's le ga l

co nc lu si on s." ).

The ru le in th is ci rcu it is th at a fai lu re to ob ject to a m ag is tra te jud ge 's

rep or t an d reco m

m en da ti on wil l no t res ul t in a [wh ol es al e] waiv er of th e rig ht to ap pe al "wh en th e qu es ti on s in vo lv ed are qu es ti on s of la w or

m ix ed qu es ti on s of la w an d fact

, or whe n ne it he r th e lo cal co ur t ru le no r th e m ag is tra te 's no ti ce ha s cl earl y in fo rm ed th e [p art ie s] t ha t fai lu re t o

-5

-ob

je c t t o t he m ag is tra te 's rep or t wil l res ul t in a waiv er of th e rig ht to

ap pe al ."

Uni te d St at es v. Ben sh op , 13 8 F.3 d 12 29

, 12 34 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (fi rs t an d t h ird

al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Fran ci s v. Bo wen , 80 4 F.2 d 10 3, 10 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 )

(p er cu ria m ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n o m it te d) ).

C. Subs ta nti ve Is su e Reg ar di ng Wi reta p Appl ic at io n Ev id ence

"Th e fed eral wire ta p st at ut e was fir st en act ed as Tit le III of th e Om ni bu s Cri m e

Co nt ro l an d Safe St reet s Act of 19 68

, Pu b.L. 90 -3 51

, 82 St at

. 21 2- 22 3, co di fie d at 18

U.S.C. §§ 25 10 -2 52 0." Uni te d St at es v. Mo or e, 41 F.3 d 37 0, 37 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ).

"Th e la w ha s du al pu r p o se s, '(1 ) pr ot ect in g th e pr iv acy of wire an d or al

co m m un ic a t i o ns , an d (2 ) de li ne at in g on a un ifo rm ba si s th e ci rcu m st an ces an d

co nd it io n s u n d e r whi ch th e in te rcep ti on of wire an d or al co m m un ic at io ns m ay be

au th or iz ed .'" Id

. (q uo ti ng S. Rep

. No. 10 97

, 90 th Co ng ., 2d Ses s., rep rin te d in 19 68 -2

U.S.C.C.A.N. 21 12

, 21 53 ). The st at ut e b r o a d l y pr oh ib it s wire ta ps "[e ]xcep t as

ot he rwis e sp eci fic al ly pro vi de d i n t hi s ch ap te r." 1 8 U.S.C. § 25 11 (1 ).

The fed eral st at ut es go ve rn in g wire ta p ap pl ic at io ns cl earl y req u i r e t ha t su ch

ap pl ic at io ns m

us t be au th or iz ed by th e Att or ne y Gen eral or ot h e r su ch de si gn at ed

au th or it y sp eci fic al ly en um erat ed i n t h e s t a tu te

. Id

. at § 25 16 (1 ). All wire ta p

ap pl ic at io ns m

us t id en ti fy th e in ve st ig at iv e or la w en fo rcem en t of fic er m ak in g th e

ap pl ic at io n, an d th e de si gn at ed Att or ne y Gen eral rep res en ta ti ve au th or iz in g th e

ap pl ic at i o n

. Id

. at § 25 18 (1 )(a)

. Acco rd in g to th e st at ut or y sc he m e, th e co ur t m ay

su pp res s ev id en ce acq ui red th ro ug h wire ta pp in g, up on m ot io n of "[a ]ny ag gr ie ve d

pe rs on " if "(i ) th e co m

m un ic at io n was u n l a w fu ll y in te rcep te d; (ii ) th e or de r of

au th or iz at io n or ap pr ov al un de r w h i c h i t was in te rcep te d is in su ffi ci en t on it s face ;

or (ii i) th e in te rcep t i o n w a s n ot m ad e in co nf or m it y wit h th e or de r of au th or iz at io n

or a p p r o v a l ." Id

. at § 25 18 (1 0) (a). Non co m pl ia nc e wit h th e st at ut or y pr ov is io ns

-6

-go ve rn in g th e ap pl ic at io n pr oc e d u r e a r e co nt em pl at ed by th e rel ie f av ai la bl e fo r

ag gr i e v e d p e rs on s un de r th e st at ut e. Uni te d St at es v. Gio rd an o, 41 6 U.S. 5 05 , 5 28
(1 97 4) (ex pl ai ni ng tha

t § 25 18 (1 0) (a)( i) pr ov id es fo r su pp res si on of ev id en ce di rect ly

or in di rect ly ob ta in ed in vi ol at io n of t he pre -ap pr ov al pro vi si on s o f th e ch ap te r an d

th at th es e pr ov is io ns were in te nd ed to pl ay a cen tra l ro le in th e st at ut or y sc he m e an d

th us vi ol at io n th ereo f am ou nt s to th e u n l a wfu l in te rcep ti on of wire an d or al

co m m un ic at io ns ).

Dete rm in in g whe th er su pp res si on is warra nt ed in a pa rti cu la r cas e req ui res an

ex am in at io n as to whe th er th e st at ut or y req ui rem en t vi ol at ed ( h e r e , t he fai lu re to

id en ti fy th e ap pl ic an t's au th or it y to m ak e th e ap pl ic at io n) oc cu pi es a cen tra l, or ev en

fu nc ti on al

, ro le in gu ard in g ag a i n s t u n w arra nt ed us e of wire ta pp in g or el ect ro ni c

su rv ei ll an ce. Uni te d St at es v. Ch av ez, 4 1 6 U

. S

. 5 6 2

, 57 8 (1 97 4)

. Su pp res si on is

req ui red un de r § 25 18 (1 0) (a)( i) & (ii ) on ly fo r " fai lu re to sa ti sf y an y of th os e 4

st at ut or y req u i r e men ts th at di rect ly an d su bs ta nt ia ll y im pl em en t th e co ng res si on al

in te nt io n to li m it th e us e of in te rcep t pr oc ed ur es to th os e si tu at io ns cl earl y cal li ng fo r

th e em pl oym en t of th is ex tra o r di na ry in ve st ig at iv e de vi ce." Gio rd an o, 41 6 U.S. at

52 7 ( h o ld in g, in pa rt, th at su pp res si on un de r § 25 18 (1 0) (a)( i) fo r "u nl awfu ll y

in te rcep te d" co m

m un ic at io ns in cl ud es co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns as well as fai lu re to

sa ti sf y cert ai n st at ut or y req ui rem en ts ); se e al so M oo re, 41 F.3 d at 37 5 (an al y zi ng

whe th er a faci al in su ffi ci en cy vi ol at ed a co re st at ut or y req ui rem en t in a §

25 18 (1 0) (a)( ii ) cas e). Su pp r e s s io n is no t jus ti fie d if th e faci al in su ffi ci en cy of th e

wire ta p or de r is no m or e th an a te ch ni cal de fect

. Mo or e, 41 F.3 d at 37 4. Acco rd in g

to Mo or e, ou r an al y si s is two -ti ered

, fir st id en ti fy in g th e om is si on or de fect at is su e (i.e

., whe th er th e ch al le ng ed do cu m en t is in su ffi ci en t o n i t s f ace)

, an d se co nd

,

I t i s un cl ear fro m th e pa rti es ' in it ia l m ot io ns an d th e di st ric t co ur t's or de r 4

whi ch of th e gr ou nd s av ai la bl e un de r § 25 18 (1 0) (a) was rel ie d up on to su pp res s th e wire ta p e vi de nc e h ere.

-7

-de te rm in in g whe th er th at de fect vi ol at es a co re st at ut or y req ui rem en t or whe th er it is

a m ere t ech ni cal de fect no t war ran ti ng su pp res si on . Id. at 37 5.

The go ve rn m en t as se rts th at th e bo il erp la te st at em en t in th e wir et ap ap pli catio n

it se lf th at "an ap pr op ria te of fic ia l of th e Cri m in al Div is io n" ha d gi ve n au th or iz at io n,

fu lfi ll ed th e sta

tut or y pur po se –t ha t jus t by sa y in g so m eo ne au th or iz ed by th e Att or ne y

Gen eral ha d si gn ed of

f on it

, "t he is su in g jud ge was m ad e aware th at th e cen tra l ro le

in gu ard in g ag ai ns t th e un w arra nt ed us e of wire ta pp in g ha d be en fu lfi ll ed ." So

,

arg ue s t h e g o v ern m en t, th e fai lu re to at ta ch th e act ua l au th or iz in g do cu m en ts was

m erel y a te ch ni cal de fect

. The di st ric t co u r t di sa gr eed

, ho ld in g th at om it ti ng th es e

do cu m en ts co ul d no t be a m ere te ch ni cal de fect be cau se co rre c t a u t h or iz at io n an d

pr oo f th ereo f is th e cen te r of th e who le st at ut or y sc he m e li m it in g th e us e of in te rcep t

pr oc ed ur es to th os e si tu at io ns cl earl y cal li ng fo r th e em pl oym en t of th is ex tra or di na ry

in ve st ig at iv e d ev ic e.

In Gio rd an o, th e Su pr em e Co ur t st at ed it was "co nf id en t th at th e pr ov is io n fo r

pr e-ap pl ic at io n a pp ro va l was in te nd ed to pl ay a cen tra l rol e in th e st at ut or y sch em e

an d th at su pp res si on m

us t fo ll ow whe n it is sh own th at th is st at ut or y req ui rem en t ha s

be en ig no red ." 41 6 U.S. at 5 28

. In Gio rd an o, th e Co ur t su pp res se d evi de nc e whe n

it be cam e ap pa ren t th at at th e ti m e th e wire ta p ap pl ic at io ns w e r e mad e, th e

ap pl ic at io n erro ne ou sl y pu rp or te d to ha ve be en au th or iz ed by a sp eci al ly de si gn at ed

Ass is ta nt Att or ne y Gen eral

. Id

. at 50 9, 52 9. Late r, ho wev er, it de ve lo pe d th at th e

fir st wire t a p ap pl ic at io n ha d no t in fact be en au th or iz ed by a sp eci al ly de si gn at ed

in di vi du al , bu t ra th er t he Att or ne y Gen eral 's Exe cu ti ve Ass is ta nt , a n in di vi du al no t

st at ut or il y au th or iz ed to do so

. Id

. at 51 0. Bec au se t h e o f f ic er ap pr ov in g th e

ap pl ic at io n ha d be en m is id en ti fie d, th e m ot io n t o s up pr es s was gr an te d un de r §

25 18 (1 0) (a)( i) as to ev id en ce ob ta in ed fro m th e ex ecu ti on of th e fir st wire ta p an d an y

wire ta p t he reaf

te r th at rel ie d u po n t he fir st fau lt y ap pl ic at io n. Id . at 5 33

.

-8

-Late r, in Ch av ez, th e Co ur t ag ai n vi si te d th is is su e. The re, th e Co ur t he ld th at

su pp res si on was no t ne ces sa ry whe re th e Att or ne y Gen eral ha d act ua ll y au th or iz ed

t he ch al le ng ed wire ta p bu t th e ap pl ic at io n in co rrec tl y id en ti fie d th e As s i s t a n t

A t t or ne y Gen eral (a po te nt ia l, st at ut or il y de si gn at ed of fic ia l th at co ul d ha ve b e e n

de si gn at ed by th e Att or ne y Gen eral ) as th e au th or iz in g of fic ia l. 41 6 U.S. at 56 8- 69

. The Co ur t ack no wled ge d th e "fa ci al su ffi ci en cy " of th e wire ta p ap pl ic at io n be cau se

it cl earl y id en t i f

i ed on it s face th e na m e of th e au th or iz in g Ass is ta nt Att or ne y

Gen eral

. Id

. at 5 7 3

- 7 4

. S t a te d di ffer en tl y , th e ap pl ic at io n in Ch av ez st at ed th at a

sp eci fic al ly na m ed

, st at ut or il y de si gn at ed of fic ia l act ua ll y ga ve th e au th or iz at io n. In

li gh t of Ch av ez, th e go ve rn m en t's arg um en t th at th e st at em en t on the ap pl ic at io n it se lf

th at th e ap pr op ria te ap pr ov al ha d be en rece iv ed carr ie s so m e weig ht

. Th e cri ti cal

di ffer en ce is

, ho wev er, th at in Ch av ez, th e face of th e ap pl ic at io n in cl ud ed th e na m e

of th e sp eci

fi c in di vi du al th at ha d pu rp or te dl y au th or iz ed th e ap pl ic at io n whe reas th e

ap pl ic at io n in th is cas e jus t st at es ge ne ric al ly th at "an ap pr op ria te of fic ia l of th e

Cri m in al Div is io n" ha d a ut ho riz ed th e ap pl ic at io n. Id . at 5 66 . Unl ik e Ch av ez, o ne

can no t te ll fro m th e face of th e ap pl ic at io n at is su e he re ex act ly wh o th e au th or iz in g

in di vi du al was , jus t ge ne ric al ly th at au th or iz at io n was rece iv ed

, whi ch do es no t al lo w

th e au th or iz in g jud ge to is su e an in te rcep ti on or de r wit h th e kn owl ed ge co nt em pl at ed

by Co ng res s. 18 U.S.C. § 25 18 (1 )(a) (req ui rin g th at each ap pl ic at io n in cl ud e th e

id en ti ty of th e o ffi cer a ut ho riz in g t he ap pl ic at io n)

.

The Eig ht h C i r cu it ha s li ke wis e weig he d in on th is m at te r. In Mo or e, th e

de fen da nt ch al le ng ed a wire ta p ap pl ic at io n th at ha d be en ap pr ov ed by th e jud ge , an d

al th ou gh th e jud ge th ou gh t he si gn ed th e ap pl ic at io n or de r, th ere was no si gn at ur e by

th e jud ge on th e or de r. 41 F.3 d at 37 3. The re, we de ni ed th e m ot io n to su pp res s,

de te rm in in g th at th e ab se nc e of th e jud ge 's si gn at ur e was on ly a te ch ni cal de fect

. Id

.

at 37 5- 76

. The co ur t he ld th at th e req ui rem en t of jud ic ia l ap pr ov al is ob vi ou sl y at th e

co re of t h e co ng res si on al pu rp os e un de rlyin g th e st at ut e, bu t no te d th at wr it te n

ap pr ov al was no t act ua l l y req ui red

. Id

. And

, th ere was te st im on y fro m th e

au th or iz in g jud ge th at he in de ed ap pr ov ed th e ap pl ic at io n an d fu ll y in te nd ed to si gn

-9

-it

. Id

. In fact

, th e jud ge te st ifi ed th at he fo un d su ffi ci en t pr ob ab le cau se to is su e th e

or de r an d be li ev ed he ha d si gn ed th e or de r al on g wit h al l of th e ot he r or ig in al pa pe rs

pr es en te d to hi m f

o r h i s s i gn at ur e at th e ti m e of th e ap pl ic at io n. Id . a t 37 2- 73

. On

th os e fact s, th e ab se nc e of th e jud ge ' s si gn at ur e di d "n ot refl ect a vi ol at io n of an y

un de rlyin g st at ut or y req ui rem en t." Id

. at 37 5. Mo or e is th us in ap po si te to th e is su e

un iq ue ly pres en te d h ere.

The ap pl ic at io n in th e in st an t cas e is in su ffi ci en t on it s f a c e , as it do es no t

co m po rt wit h th e § 25 18 (1 )(a) req ui rem en t. And de sp it e th e go ve rn m en t's arg um en ts

to th e co nt rary, th e om is si on he re is no t "t ech ni cal " as ha s be en de te rm in ed in ot he r

cas es

. See Uni te d St at es v. Rad cl iff

, 33 1 F.3 d 11 53

, 11 6 0 -6 3 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 03 )

(d en y in g su pp res si on be cau se ev en th ou gh th e na m e of th e au th or iz in g offi ci al was

om it te d fro m th e wire ta p or de r , th ere was no di sp ut e th at th e ap pl ic at io ns id en ti fie d

th e ap pr op ria te DOJ in di vi du al ); Uni te d St at es v. Fu dg e, 32 5 F.3 d 91 0, 91 7- 18 (7 th

Ci r. 20 03 ) (d en y in g su pp res si on ev en th ou gh th e or de r gr an ti ng th e wire ta p

ap pl ic at io n di d no t sp eci fic al ly id en ti fy th e auth or iz in g DOJ of fic ia l be cau se at ta ch ed

to th e ap pl ic at io n wer e two let te rs sp eci fy in g t he ap pr ov al an d au th or iz at io n, al on g

wit h a n a ffi da vi t s up po rti ng th e sa m e).

By way of t hi s s ta tu to ry

sch em e, Co ng res s i nt en de d:

no t o n l y t o li m it res or t to wire ta pp in g to cert ai n cri m es an d si tu at io ns whe re pr ob ab le cau se is pr es en t bu t al so to co nd it io n th e us e of in te rcep t

pr oc ed ur es up on th e jud gm en t of a se ni or of fic ia l in th e Dep art m en t of

Ju s t i c e t h at th e si tu at io n is on e of th os e warra nt in g th ei r us e. It is

reas on ab le to be li ev e th at su ch a pr eco nd it io n wou ld in ev it ab ly

fo recl os e res or t to wire ta pp in g in va rio us si tu at io ns whe re in ve st ig at iv e

pe rs on ne l wo ul d ot he rwis e se ek in te rcep t au th or it y fro m th e co ur t an d

th e co ur t wo ul d v ery li ke ly aut ho riz e it s u se

.

Gio rd an o, 4 16 U.S. at 5 27 -2 8.

-1 0-The au th or iz in g jud ge in th e in st an t case ha d no way of kn owi ng th e na m e of

th e act ua l, st at ut or il y de si gn at ed of fic ia l th at ha d in de ed au th or iz ed th e ap pl ic at io n

ev e n t h o u g h th e ap pl ic at io n st at es as m uc h in ge ne ral te rm s– on e of th e co re

co m po ne nt s of th is le gi sl at io n. And

, th e g o v e r n m en t of fere d no ev id en ce (s uc h as

was rece iv ed in ot he r cas es ) th at th e jud ge in de ed kn ew th e id en ti ty of th e ap pr op ria te

au th or iz in g of

fic ia l, or th at th e na m e of th e st at ut or il y d e s i g n at ed of fic ia l was

ot he rwis e di sc lo se d. Su ch ev id en ce wou ld ha v e d e mo ns tra te d co m pl ia nc e wit h al l

th e fu nd am en ta l st at ut or y sa feg ua rd s th at pr ote ct ag ai nst una uth or iz ed or unw ar

ra nt ed

wire ta p su rv ei ll an ce. See Mo or e, 41 F.3 d at 37 5 n.2 (jus ti fy in g a de te rm in at io n th at 5

an om is si on was a m ere te ch ni cal it y by fo cu si ng on th e rel ev a n t p e r sp ect iv e of th e

pa rti es to th e ev en ts

, whe re al l pr es en t, in cl ud in g th e jud ge , pr oc eed ed as if th e jud ge

ha d si gn ed th e or de r as he fu ll y i n t e nd ed

, th us Co ng res s's pu rp os e in req ui rin g jud ic ia l ap pr ov al was s ub st an ti al ly fulf il le d)

.

Des pi te th e fact th at th e go ve rn m en t in te nd ed an d m ay ve ry well ha ve th ou gh t

th e ap pr op ria te au th or iz in g do cu m en ts were at ta ch ed to th e ap pl ic at i o n , t h e y were

no t, an d th ere is no th in g in th e reco rd to gi ve us reas on to b e l i e v e t h at th e jud ge

au th o r i z i n g th e wire ta p– th e pe rs on fo r who se be ne fit th e st at ut or y req ui rem en t is

writ te n– kn ew th at th e req ui si te au th or it y was ob ta in ed

. It was no t un ti l th e m ag is tra te
ju dg e co nd uc te d th e su pp le m en ta l he ari ng in th e in st an t cas e th at th e go ve rn m en t

of fere d th e su pp or ti ng do cu m en ts

. Giv en th e co ng res si on al in te nt to st ric tl y li m it th e

us e o f th is el ect ro ni c in te rcep ti on , fai li ng to in cl ud e th e na m e of th e au th or iz in g

of fic ia l, an d fai li ng to in cl ud e th e do cu m en ts th a t c o u l d ha ve eas il y es ta bl is he d

The cas es rel ie d up on by th e go ve rn m en t to su pp or t th e pr op os it io n th at m in or 5

erro rs in a wire ta p ap pl ic at io n or o r d e r d o no t warra nt su pp res si on are who ll y di st in gu is ha bl e. In each

, ei th er th e is su in g jud ge kn ew th e id en ti ty of th e au th or iz in g DOJ o f f i c i a l

, or th e of

fic ia l was de si gn at ed by na m e in th e ap pl ic at io n bu t th at
in fo rm at io n was om it te d fro m th e au th or iz in g or de r. See Uni te d St at e s v

. Cal lu m , 41 0 F.3 d 57 1, 57 4- 77 (9 th Ci r. 20 05 ), Fu dg e, 32 5 F.3 d at 91 4- 18 ; Rad cl iff

, 33 1 F.3 d

at 11 60 -6 2.

-1 1-co nf

irmatio n or pr oo f of su ch au th or iz at io n, was no t a "m in or ," or m erel y te ch ni cal

, de fect

. W e th eref

or e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t's su pp res si on ord er o n t hi s b as is

. 6

C. Go od Fai th Ex cept io n

The go ve rn m en t al te rn at iv el y arg ue s th at th e Leo n go od fai th ex cep ti on sh ou ld

ap pl y in th es e ci rcu m st an ces be cau se , ag ai n, th e ap pl ic at io n's st at eme n t t h at "an

ap pr op ria te of

fic ia l of th e Cri m in al Div is io n" s u f fic es

. Yet, ev en th ou gh we ha ve

ap pl ie d th e go od fai th do ct rin e ad op te d in Uni te d St at es v. Leo n, 46 8 U.S. 89 7 (1 98 4)

in th e § 25 18 (1 0) (a) co nt ex t, it do es no t ap pl y on th es e fact s. Mo or e, 41 F.3 d at 37 6.

In Leo n, th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t ex cl us io na ry ru le do es

no t req ui re th e su pp res si on of ev id en ce se iz ed by th e po li ce pu rs ua nt to a se arch

warra nt whi ch was so ug ht

, ob ta in ed

, an d ex ecu t e d in ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le go od

fai th

, bu t whi ch was he ld

, su bs eq ue nt ly, to ha ve be en is su ed wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se

. 46 8 U.S. at 91 8- 21

.

Mo or e an d it s ap pl ic at io n of th e go od fai th do ct rin e is no ta bl y di st in ct

. In

Mo or e it "'was th e jud ge , no t th e po li ce of fic ers , who m ad e th e cri ti cal m is ta ke .'" 41

F.3 d at 37 6 (q uo ti ng Mas sa ch us et ts v. Sh ep pa rd

, 46 8 U.S. 98 1, 99 0 (1 98 4) ). The re,

th e la w en fo rcem en t of

fic ia ls "co m

pl ie d wit h th e co re st a t u t o r y req ui rem en ts of

fed eral wire ta p la w in ap pl y in g fo r an d ex ecu ti ng th e wire ta p or de rs ." Id

. at 37 6- 77

. The of fic er in Mo or e le ft th e ju dg e's ch am be rs be li ev in g, as di d th e jud ge , th at th e

In do in g so , we pa rt way s wit h ou r si st er ci rcu it

, w hi ch he ld ot he rwis e on 6

si m il ar fact s. See Gray

, 52 1 F.3 d at 52 3, 52 7 (d en y in g su pp res si on be cau s e ev en th ou gh th e sp eci fic na m e of th e au th or iz in g of fic ia l was om it te d fro m th e ap pl ic at io n,

an d it was un cl ear whet he r th e ap pl ic an t in fo rm ed th e jud ge of th e sp eci fic na m e of

th e a u t h o r i z i ng of

fic ia l, th e fact of pr op er au th or iz at io n was m ad e kn own to th e is su in g ju dg e at th e ti m e he si gn ed th e ap pl ic at io n– i.e., th e ap pl ic an t to ld th e jud ge he ha d ob ta in ed au th or iz at io n fro m a DOJ of f i c ia l sp eci al ly de si gn at ed to ap pr ov e wire ta p a pp li cat io ns ).

-1 2-jud ge ha d ap pr ov ed th e wire ta p ap pl ic at io n an d th at th e or de r ha d be en en te red

. Id

.

at 37 6. Acco rd in gl y , we he ld th e of fic er act ed in go od fai th in pr es um in g th e va li di ty

of th e wir et ap ord er h e rea so na bl y be li ev ed he watc he d t he jud ge si gn an d e nt er.

Ju st th e op po si te oc cu rred he re. W e ha ve al read y de te rm in ed t h a t t he

go ve rn m en t fai le d to co m pl y wit h th e co re st at ut or y req ui rem en ts of fed eral wire ta p

la w an d th at th e om is si on he re was no t m erel y a te ch ni ca l d e f e c t

. St at ed in

jux ta po si ti on wit h Leo n juri sp ru de nc e, we ho ld th at no wire ta p ap pl ic an t can , in go od

fai th

, rel y up on a co u r t o rd er au th or iz in g th e wire ta p whe n th e ap pl ic an t fai le d to

co m pl y wit h th e ed ic ts of th e fed eral wire ta p st at ut e in pr oc u r i n g t h e or de r. The

fai lu re he re th wart s th e co re pu rp os e of th e st at ut or y sc he m e in pl ace to reg ul at e su ch

ex tra or di na ry in ve st ig at iv e te c h n i q u e s

. To ho ld ot he rwis e on th es e fact s wou ld

pr om pt ba d pr act ic es an d rewar d th os e who ro ut in el y in cl ud e m ere bo il erp la te

la ng ua ge in wire ta p ap pl ic at io ns , whi ch ru ns up st r e a m fro m th e care fu ll y la id ou t

st at ut or y sc he m e. W it ho ut in cl ud in g th e na m e of th e au th or iz in g DOJ of fic ia l on

wire ta p ap pl ic at io ns , th ere can be no "g oo d fai th " rel ia nc e un de r th e st at ut or y sc he m e

care fu ll y craf te d b y Co ng res s to li m it th e us e of th es e el ect ro ni c in te rcep ti on s. W e

wil l ta ke no pa rt in de tra ct in g fro m Co ng res s's in te nt "t o m ak e do ub ly s ur e th at th e

st at ut or y au th or it y be us ed wit h re st rai nt an d o nl y wher e th e ci rcu m st an ces warra nt

th e su rrep ti ti ou s in te rcep ti on of wire an d or al co m m un ic at io ns ." Gio rd an o, 41 6 U.S.

at 51 5.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th e reas on s st at ed we aff i r m t h e gr an t of th e m ot io ns to su pp res s in th is

cas e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-