Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/103529/united-states-vs-giordano
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:22:16+00:00

Document:
"the Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General, may authorize an application to a Federal judge . . . for . . . an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications"
and derivative evidence under §§ 2515 and 2518(10)(a)(i), inter alia.
1. Congress did not intend the power to authorize wiretap applications to be exercised by any individuals other than the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General specially designated by him. Pp. 416 U. S. 512 -523.
(a) Notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 510, which authorizes the Attorney General to delegate any of his functions to any other officer, employee, or agency of the Justice Department, § 2516(1), fairly read, was intended to limit the power to authorize wiretap applications to the Attorney General himself and to any Assistant Attorney General he might designate. Pp. 416 U. S. 512 -514.
(b) This interpretation of § 2516(1) is strongly supported by the purpose of the Act effectively to prohibit all interceptions of oral and wire communications except those specifically provided for, and by its legislative history. Pp. 416 U. S. 514 -523.
2. Primary or derivative evidence secured by wire interceptions pursuant to a court order issued in response to an application which was, in fact, not authorized by the Attorney General or a specially designated Assistant Attorney General must be suppressed under § 2515 upon a motion properly made under § 2518(10)(a), and hence the evidence obtained from the interceptions pursuant to the initial court order was properly suppressed. Pp. 416 U. S. 524 -529.
(a) Under § 2518(10)(a)(i) the words "unlawfully intercepted" are not limited to constitutional violations, but the statute was intended to require suppression where there is a failure to satisfy any of those statutory requirements that directly and substantially implement the congressional intention to limit the use of intercept procedures to those situations clearly calling for the employment of this extraordinary investigative device. Pp. 416 U. S. 524 -528.
(b) Since Congress intended to condition the use of intercept procedures upon the judgment of a senior Justice Department official that the situation is one of those warranting their use, thus precluding resort to wiretapping in various situations where investigative personnel would otherwise seek intercept authority from the court and the court would very likely authorize its use, it is evident that the provision for pre-application approval was intended to play a central role in the statutory scheme and that suppression must follow when it is shown that this statutory requirement has been ignored. Pp. 416 U. S. 528 -529.
3. Communications intercepted pursuant to the extension order were inadmissible, since they were evidence derived from the communications invalidly intercepted pursuant to the initial order. Pp. 416 U. S. 529 -533.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in Parts I, II, and III of which all Members joined, and in Part IV of which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BRENNAN, STEWART, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 416 U. S. 580 . POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in Parts I, II, and III of the Court's opinion and dissenting from Part IV, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 416 U. S. 548 .
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 211-225, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520, prescribes the procedure for securing judicial authority to intercept wire communications in the investigation of specified serious offenses. The Court must here determine whether the Government sufficiently complied with the required application procedures in this case and whether, if not, evidence obtained as a result of such surveillance, under a court order based on the applications, is admissible at the criminal trial of those whose conversations were overheard. In particular, we must decide whether the provision of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2516(1) [ Footnote 1 ] conferring power on that "Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General" to "authorize an application to a Federal judge . . . for . . . an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications" by federal investigative agencies seeking evidence of certain designated offenses permits the Attorney General's Executive Assistant to validly authorize a wiretap application to be made. We conclude that Congress did not intend the power to authorize wiretap applications to be exercised by any individuals other than the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General specially designated by him, and that primary or derivative evidence secured by wire interceptions pursuant to a court order issued in response to an application which was, in fact, not authorized by one of the statutorily designated officials must be suppressed under 18 U.S.C. § 2515 upon a motion properly made under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(a). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
"pursuant to application authorized by the Assistant Attorney General . . . Will Wilson, who has been specially designated in this proceeding by the Attorney General . . . to exercise the powers conferred on him by [18 U.S.C. § 2516]."
On November 6, the same judge extended the intercept authority based on an application similar in form to the original, but also including information obtained from the interception already authorized and carried out and extending the authority to conversations of additional named individuals calling from or to Giordano's telephone. The interception was terminated on November 18, when Giordano and the other respondents were arrested and charged with violations of the narcotics laws.
November 6 extension order had been approved and authorized by Assistant Attorney General Will Wilson, as the applications had indicated. An affidavit of the Executive Assistant to the Attorney General divulged that he, the Executive Assistant, had reviewed the request for authorization to apply for the initial order, had concluded, from his "knowledge of the Attorney General's actions on previous cases, that he would approve the request if submitted to him," and, because the Attorney General was then on a trip away from Washington, D.C., and pursuant to authorization by the Attorney General for him to do so in such circumstances, had approved the request and caused the Attorney General's initials to be placed on a memorandum to Wilson instructing him to authorize Brocato to proceed. The affidavit also stated that the Attorney General himself had approved the November 6 request for extension, and had initialed the memorandum to Wilson designating him to authorize Brocato to make application for an extension order. It was also revealed that, although the applications recited that they had been authorized by Will Wilson, he had not himself reviewed Brocato's applications, and that his action was, at best, only formal authorization to Brocato. Furthermore, it became apparent that Wilson did not himself sign either of the letters bearing his name and accompanying the applications to the District Court. Instead, it appeared that someone in Wilson's office had affixed his signature after the signing of the letters had been authorized by a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division who had, in turn, acted after the approval of the request for authorization had occurred in and had been received from the Office of the Attorney General.
with respect to the administration of the circumscribed authority Congress has granted in Title III for the use of wiretapping and wiretap evidence by law enforcement officers. 411 U.S. 905.
"The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General."
As a general proposition, the argument is unexceptionable. But here the matter of delegation is expressly addressed by § 2516, and the power of the Attorney General in this respect is specifically limited to delegating his authority to "any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General." Despite § 510, Congress does not always contemplate that the duties assigned to the Attorney General may be freely delegated. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1968, for instance, certain prosecutions are authorized only on the certification of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General, "which function of certification may not be delegated." 18 U.S.C. § 245(a)(1). Equally precise language forbidding delegation was not employed in the legislation before us; but we think § 2516(1), fairly read, was intended to limit the power to authorize wiretap applications to the Attorney General himself and to any Assistant Attorney General he might designate. This interpretation of the statute is also strongly supported by its purpose and legislative history.
must particularize the extent and nature of the interceptions that they authorize, § 2518(4), and they expire within a specified time unless expressly extended by a judge based on further application by enforcement officials, § 2518(5). Judicial supervision of the progress of the interception is provided for, § 2518(6), as is official control of the custody of any recordings or tapes produced by the interceptions carried out pursuant to the order, § 2518(8). The Act also contains provisions specifying the circumstances and procedures under and by which aggrieved persons may seek and obtain orders for the suppression of intercepted wire or oral communication sought to be used in evidence by the Government. § 2518(10)(a).
responsible Department of Justice official is interposed as a critical precondition to any judicial order.
specified crimes. As I understand the bill, the application for a court order could be made only by the authority of the Attorney General or an officer of the Department of Justice or U.S. Attorney authorized by him. I suggest that the bill should confine the power to authorize an application for a court order to the Attorney General and ally assistant Attorney General whom he may designate. This would give greater assurance of a responsible executive determination of the need and justifiability of each interception."
"Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice specially designated by the Attorney General, may authorize"
a wiretap application. Id. at 372.
"The CHAIRMAN. . . . About the origin of the application, as I understand it, your bill provides it must be originated by the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General. Am I correct in that regard?"
"Professor BLAKEY. Yes, you are, Mr. Chairman."
"The CHAIRMAN. The application must be made by the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General."
Department of Justice. If we cannot make certain cases, that is going to have to be the price we will have to pay."
"Section 2516 of the new chapter authorizes the interception of particular wire or oral communication under court order pursuant to the authorization of the appropriate Federal, State, or local prosecuting officer."
"Paragraph (1) . . . centralizes in a publicly responsible official subject to the political process the formulation of law enforcement policy on the use of electronic surveillance techniques. Centralization will avoid the possibility that divergent practices might develop. Should abuses occur, the lines of responsibility lead to an identifiable person. This provision, in itself, should go a long way toward guaranteeing that no abuses will happen."
There was no congressional attempt, however, to extend that authority beyond the Attorney General or his Assistant Attorney General designate.
We also reject the Government's contention that, even if the approval by the Attorney General's Executive Assistant of the October 16 application did not comply with the statutory requirements, the evidence obtained from the interceptions should not have been suppressed. The issue does not turn on the judicially fashioned exclusionary rule aimed at deterring violations of Fourth Amendment rights, but upon the provisions of Title III; and, in our view, the Court of Appeals correctly suppressed the challenged wiretap evidence.
"(i) the communication was unlawfully intercepted; "
"(iii) the interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or approval. [ Footnote 13 ]"
(i) must include some constitutional violations. Suppression for lack of probable cause, for example, is not provided for in so many words, and must fall within paragraph (i) unless, as is most unlikely, the statutory suppression procedures were not intended to reach constitutional violations at all. On the other hand paragraphs (ii) and (iii) plainly reach some purely statutory defaults without constitutional overtones, and these omissions cannot be deemed unlawful interceptions under paragraph (i), else there would have been no necessity for paragraphs (ii) and (iii) -- or, to put the matter another way, if unlawful interceptions under paragraph (i) include purely statutory issues, paragraphs (ii) and (iii) are drained of all meaning, and are surplusage. The conclusion of the argument is that, if nonconstitutional omissions reached by paragraphs (ii) and (iii) are not unlawful interceptions under paragraph (i), then there is no basis for holding that "unlawful interceptions" include any such statutory matters; the only purely statutory transgressions warranting suppression are those falling within paragraphs (ii) and (iii).
paragraphs (ii) and (iii) were retained, they must have been considered "necessary," that is, not covered by paragraph (i).
reasonable to believe that such a precondition would inevitably foreclose resort to wiretapping in various situations where investigative personnel would otherwise seek intercept authority from the court, and the court would very likely authorize its use. We are confident that the provision for pre-application approval was intended to play a central role in the statutory scheme, and that suppression must follow when it is shown that this statutory requirement has been ignored.
"should serve to guarantee that the standards of the new chapter will sharply curtail the unlawful interception of wire and oral communications. [ Footnote 17 ]"
intercepted under the November 6 extension order are admissible, because they are not "evidence derived" from the contents of communications intercepted under the October 16 order within the meaning of §§ 2515 and 2518(10)(a). This position is untenable.
Under § 2518, extension orders do not stand on the same footing as original authorizations, but are provided for separately.
"Extensions of an order may be granted, but only upon application for an extension made in accordance with subsection (1) of this section and the court making the findings required by subsection (3) of this section."
§ 2518(5). Under subsection (1)(e), applications for extensions must reveal previous applications and orders, and, under (1)(f), must contain "a statement setting forth the results thus far obtained from the interception, or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain such results." Based on the application, the court is required to make the same findings that are required in connection with the original order; that is, it must be found not only that there is probable cause in the traditional sense and that normal investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed, but also that there is probable cause for believing that particular communications concerning the offense will be obtained through the interception and for believing that the facilities or place from which the wire or oral communications are to be intercepted are used or will be used in connection with the commission of such offense or are under lease to the suspect or commonly used by him. § 2518(3).
communications concerning the offense involved would be intercepted, particularly those between Giordano and the other named individuals, as well as those with others as yet unnamed, and that the telephone listed in the name of Giordano and whose monitoring was sought to be continued "has been used, and is being used and will be used, in connection with the commission of the offenses described." App. 62.
In the affidavit supporting the application, the United States set out the previous applications and orders, incorporated by reference, and reasserted the "facts, details and conclusions contained in [the] affidavits" supporting the prior wiretap application, and set down in detail the relevant communications overheard under the existing order, as well as the physical movements of Giordano observed as the result of an around-the-clock surveillance that had been conducted by the authorities. App. 6581. The Government concluded, "[a]fter analyzing the intercepted conversations to and from [Giordano's telephone] and the results of BNDD surveillance," that nine listed individuals, some identified only by aliases, were associated with Giordano as suppliers or buyers in illegal narcotics trafficking, and that certain other persons were perhaps connected with the operation in an as yet undisclosed fashion. Id. at 79-80. It was also said that the full scope of Giordano's organization was not yet known. Id. at 80. Assertedly, Giordano was extremely guarded in his telephone conversations, "any specific narcotics conversations he makes are from pay phones" and "[c]onventional surveillance would be completely ineffective except as an adjunct to electronic interception." Id. at 81. The United States accordingly requested an extension of the interception order for no longer than a 15-day period.
evidence derived from the communications invalidly intercepted pursuant to the initial order. In the first place, the application sought and the order granted authority to intercept the communications of various named individuals not mentioned in the initial order. It is plain from the affidavit submitted that information about most of these persons was obtained through the initial illegal interceptions. It is equally plain that the telephone monitoring and accompanying surveillance were coordinated operations, necessarily intertwined. As the Government asserted, the surveillance and conventional investigative techniques "would be completely ineffective except as an adjunct to electronic interception." That the extension order and the interceptions under it were not, in fact, the product of the earlier electronic surveillance is incredible.
"has been used, is being used, and will be, used in connection with the commission of the offenses described above, and is commonly used by Nicholas Giordano . . ."
and nine other named persons. Ibid.
§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire or oral communications prohibited.
of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of such communication: Provided, That said communication common carriers shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.
(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.
(3) Nothing contained in this chapter or in section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1143; 47 U.S.C. 605) shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities. Nor shall anything contained in this chapter be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government. The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by authority of the President in the exercise of the foregoing powers may be received in evidence in any trial hearing or other proceeding only where such interception was reasonable, and shall not be otherwise used or disclosed except as is necessary to implement that power.
§ 2515. Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications.
§ 2516. Authorization for interception of wire or oral communications.
and with the applicable State statute an order authorizing, or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by investigative or law enforcement officers having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made, when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of the commission of the offense of murder, kidnapping, gambling, robbery, bribery, extortion, or dealing in narcotic drugs, marihuana or other dangerous drugs, or other crime dangerous to life, limb, or property, and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, designated in any applicable State statute authorizing such interception, or any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses.
§ 2518. Procedure for interception of wire or oral communications.
or not the interception shall automatically terminate when the described communication has been first obtained. An order authorizing the interception of a wire or oral communication shall, upon request of the applicant, direct that a communication common carrier, landlord, custodian or other person shall furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or person is according the person whose communications are to be intercepted. Any communication common carrier, landlord, custodian or other person furnishing such facilities or technical assistance shall be compensated therefor by the applicant at the prevailing rates.
(5) No order entered under this section may authorize or approve the interception of any wire or oral communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, nor, in any event, longer than thirty days. Extensions of an order may be granted, but only upon application for an extension made in accordance with subsection (1) of this section and the court making the findings required by subsection (3) of this section. The period of extension shall be no longer than the authorizing judge deems necessary to achieve the purposes for which it was granted, and in no event for longer than thirty days. Every order and extension thereof shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept shall be executed as soon as practicable, shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under this chapter, and must terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective, or, in any event, in thirty days.
in violation of this chapter, and an inventory shall be served as provided for in subsection (d) of this section on the person named in the application.
(8)(a) The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by any means authorized by this chapter shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device. The recording of the contents of any wire or oral communication under this subsection shall be done in such a way as will protect the recording from editing or other alterations. Immediately upon the expiration of the period of the order, or extensions thereof, such recordings shall be made available to the judge issuing such order and sealed under his directions. Custody of the recordings shall be wherever the judge orders. They shall not be destroyed except upon an order of the issuing or denying judge and, in any event, shall be kept for ten years. Duplicate recordings may be made for use or disclosure pursuant to the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of section 2517 of this chapter for investigations. The presence of the seal provided for by this subsection, or a satisfactory explanation for the absence thereof, shall be a prerequisite for the use or disclosure of the contents of any wire or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom under subsection (3) of section 2517.
(b) Applications made and orders granted under this chapter shall be sealed by the judge. Custody of the applications and orders shall be wherever the judge directs. Such applications and orders shall be disclosed or upon a showing of good cause before a judge of competent jurisdiction and shall not be destroyed except on order of the issuing or denying judge, and, in any event, shall be kept for ten years.
(3) the fact that, during the period wire or oral communications were or were not intercepted.
The judge, upon the filing of a motion, may in his discretion make available to such person or his counsel for inspection such portions of the intercepted communications, applications and orders as the judge determines to be in the interest of justice. On an ex parte showing of good cause to a judge of competent jurisdiction, the serving of the inventory required by this subsection may be postponed.
the above information ten days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding and that the party will not be prejudiced by the delay in receiving such information.
is not taken for purposes of delay. Such appeal shall be taken within thirty days after the date the order was entered, and shall be diligently prosecuted.
§ 2520. Recovery of civil damages authorized.
This and other relevant provisions of the statute are contained in the Appendix to this opinion, post, p. 416 U. S. 534 .
Evidence derived from the unlawful interceptions conducted pursuant to the October 16 wiretap order was held to include the evidence obtained under the November 6 wiretap extension order and also the evidence secured under court orders of October 22 and November 6 extending investigative authority to use a "pen register," i.e., a device that records telephone numbers dialed from a particular phone, which had previously been used to monitor the numbers dialed from Giordano's phone pursuant to a court order of October 8. The applications presented to the District Court to extend wiretap and pen register authority each detailed at considerable length the contents of conversations intercepted pursuant to the October 16 order in support of the requests. We therefore agree with the Court of Appeals, for the reasons discussed in 416 U. S. infra that evidence gathered under the wiretap and pen register extension orders is tainted by the use of unlawfully intercepted communications under the October 16 order to secure judicial approval for the extensions, and must be suppressed.
"not at all convinced that, if this case had gone to trial and the court had refused to suppress evidence obtained by the wiretaps, we would have reversed,"
and that "the Justice Department's procedures were very likely consistent with the mandate of § 2516(1)." Id. at 264 and n. 5. Shortly thereafter, a different panel of that Circuit affirmed judgments of convictions in a case raising the same issue, out of "adherence to the law of the circuit" so recently decided and with the admonition that its decision should "not . . . be construed as an approval of the procedure followed by the Attorney General and his staff." United States v. Becker, 461 F.2d 230, 236 (1972). In every other circuit which has considered the issue, suppression of evidence derived from court-approved wire interceptions based on an application authorized by the Attorney General's Executive Assistant has been held to be required by Title III. United States v. Mantello, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 2, 478 F.2d 671 (1973); United States v. Roberts, 477 F.2d 57 (CA7 1973); United States v. King, 478 F.2d 494 (CA9 1973). See also United States v. Robinson, 468 F.2d 189 (CA5 1972), remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the applications were properly authorized under § 2516(1), 472 F.2d 973 (en banc 1973).
Because of our disposition of this case, we do not reach the grounds relied upon by the District Court. The issue resolved in the District Court, however, is the subject of the companion case, United States v. Chavez, post, p. 416 U. S. 562 .
"§ 509. Functions of the Attorney General."
"All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General except the functions --"
"(1) vested by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 in hearing examiners employed by the Department of Justice;"
"(2) of the Federal Prison Industries, Inc.;"
"(3) of the Board of Directors and officers of the Federal Prison Industries, Inc.; and"
"(4) of the Board of Parole."
Criminal sanctions were provided in 18 U.S.C. § 2511, and a civil damages remedy was created b § 2520. See Appendix to this opinion, post, p. 416 U. S. 534 .
In 1967, a draft statute prepared by Professor G. Robert Blakey of the University of Notre Dame Law School to regulate the interception of wire and oral communications was published in The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Organized Crime, Appendix C, at 106 113. In part, it would have added a provision to Title 18, United States Code, which empowered the "Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice specially designated by the Attorney General" to authorize an application to a federal judge for an order to intercept wire or oral communications. Id. at 108. Senator McClellan introduced a proposed "Federal Wire Interception Act," S. 675, on January 25, 1967, 113 Cong.Rec. 1491, containing, in § 5(a), the same designations of which federal prosecuting officials could authorize a wiretap application. Hearings on Controlling Crime Through More Effective Law Enforcement before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1967). Senator Hruska later introduced S. 2050 on June 29, 1967, 113 Cong.Rec. 18007 which would have provided for regulated use of electronic surveillance, as well as wiretapping, and which again made provision, in a new § 2516 to be added to Title 18, United States Code, for the same system of approval of applications for the interception of wire or oral communications as was present in the Blakey bill. Hearings, supra at 1005. In the House of Representatives, the Blakey bill was introduced on October 3, 1967, in the form of H.R. 13275, 113 Cong.Rec. 27718. Ultimately, the same operative language was enacted in Title III.
"the proposed statute, section 5a, provides that only the Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specifically designated by him, may authorize the necessary application to a Federal judge for approval to wiretap. Thus, the application will be carefully screened."
"unless authorized by a Federal judge on application of the Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice specially designated by the Attorney General, when such authorized interception or recording may provide evidence of an offense against the laws of the United States."
"This legislation, as you know, requires rather thorough court supervision through the application for a court order made by the Attorney General or officials designated in the bill. A court, of course, would have to weigh the probable cause or the reasonable cause in support of such an application. I do not know how to tighten it up any more than we have in the bill. . . . Can you tell us how to tighten it up any more?"
The Attorney General is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 28 U.S.C. § 503, as are the nine Assistant Attorneys General provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 506. The position of Executive Assistant, on the other hand, is established by regulation, to assist the Attorney General, inter alia, in the review of "matters submitted for the Attorney General's action" and to "[p]erform such other duties and functions as may be specially assigned from time to time by the Attorney General." 28 CFR § 0.6. It would appear from the Government's brief that the Executive Assistant involved in this case served as Executive Assistant to at least four Attorneys General.
"Mr. LAUSCHE. Does the bill as now written give absolute, unconditional power to stop searches or tapping, or to authorize tapping?"
"Mr. McCLELLAN. No. We have to go first to the Attorney General in the case of the Federal Government, and to the chief law enforcement officers of a State. . . . "
"Mr. LAUSCHE. There is, then, a prohibition against tapping unless the application is filed with the chief law enforcement official. He approves it, and then the application is filed with the court, is that not correct?"
"Mr. McCLELLAN. The chief law enforcement officer, like the Attorney General of the United States, must authorize the application. . . . A prosecuting attorney or a U.S. district attorney cannot, on his own motion, do it. He has to get the authority from the Attorney General of the United States first to submit the application to the court."
"The Blakey Bill provides that application for wiretapping or eavesdropping orders may be made by only a limited number of persons. At the Federal level, these are the Attorney General of the United States or an Assistant Attorney General, and at the State level, they are the State Attorney General or the principal prosecuting attorney of a political subdivision (such as a county or city District Attorney)."
"We agree that responsibility should be focused on those public officials who will be principally accountable to the courts and the public for their actions. Police and investigative agencies should not have the power to make such applications on their own. On the other hand, it seems anomalous to permit only very high Federal officials to apply, excluding such officials as United States Attorneys for entire States or Districts like the Southern District of New York, while permitting county district attorneys with substantially less responsibility to make applications. . . ."
"We also would seek to reduce the anomaly referred to above by providing that the Attorney General may delegate to United States Attorneys the power to initiate applications."
"Paragraph (2) provides that the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or the principal prosecuting attorney of any political subdivision of a State may authorize an application to a State judge of competent jurisdiction . . . for an order authorizing the interception of wire or oral communications. The issue of delegation by that officer would be a question of State law. In most States, the principal prosecuting attorney of the State would be the attorney general. The important question, however, is not name, but function. The intent of the proposed provision is to provide for the centralization of policy relating to state-wide law enforcement in the area of the use of electronic surveillance in the chief prosecuting officer of the State. . . . Where no such office exists, policymaking would not be possible on a state-wide basis; it would have to move down to the next level of government. In most States, the principal prosecuting attorney at the next political level of a State, usually the county, would be the district attorney, State's attorney, or county solicitor. The intent . . . is to centralize area-wide law enforcement policy in him. . . . Where there are both an attorney general and a district attorney, either could authorize applications, the attorney general anywhere in the State and the district attorney anywhere in his county. The proposed provision does not envision a further breakdown. Although city attorneys may have in some places limited criminal prosecuting jurisdiction, the proposed provision is not intended to include them."
"authority from Congress was to initiate wiretap applications, not to seek to have those terminated he found should never have been requested in the first place."
It would ill serve the congressional policy of having the Attorney General or one of his Assistants screen the applications prior to their submission to court to have the screening process occur after the application is made and after investigative officials have already begun to intercept wire or oral communications under a court order predicated on the assumption that proper authorization to apply for intercept authority had been given.
No question is raised in this case concerning the manner of conducting the court-approved interceptions of Giordano's telephone, and, thus, § 2518(10)(a)(iii) is inapplicable to the present situation.
The Court of Appeals also held that suppression was required under subdivision (ii) on the theory that the absence of any valid authorization of the wiretap application was the equivalent of failing to identify at all in the interception order the person who authorized the application, rendering the order "insufficient on its face." Manifestly, however, the order, on its face, clearly, though erroneously, identified Assistant Attorney General Wilson as the Justice Department officer authorizing the application, pursuant to special designation by the Attorney General. As it stood, the intercept order was facially sufficient under § 2516(1), and, despite what was subsequently discovered, the Court of Appeals was in error in justifying suppression under § 2518(10)(a)(ii).
The draft statute prepared by Professor Blakey provided this fourth ground warranting suppression in cases where there was no probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the interception order was issued. Task Force Report: Organized Crime, supra, n 7, at 111, § 3803(k)(1)(C). So did the McClellan bill, S. 675, which was introduced prior to Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41 (1967). Hearings on Controlling Crime Through More Effective Law Enforcement, supra, n 7, at 78, § 8(g)(3). But the bill proposed by Senator Hruska after Berger (S. 2050) omitted this ground in a provision the language of which is substantially identical to § 2518(10)(a) as finally enacted. Id. at 1008, § 2518(k)(1). An explanation for the omission is provided in an appendix comparing S. 675 with S. 2050, which was published by Senator Scott, a cosponsor of the latter bill, in an article in the Howard Law Journal, Wiretapping and Organized Crime, 14 How.L.J. 1 (1968), and which was reprinted in Senator Scott's remarks on the Senate floor concerning the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. 114 Cong.Rec. 1320-13211. It is there simply stated that "Senator Hruska's man says that the probable cause test is implied in (1)." Id. at 13211.
"Section 2515 of the new chapter imposes an evidentiary sanction to compel compliance with the other prohibitions of the chapter. . . . The provision must, of course, be read in light of section 2518(10)(a) discussed below, which defines the class entitled to make a motion to suppress. It largely reflects existing law. It applies to suppress evidence directly ( Nardone v. United States, 302 U. S. 379 (1937)), or indirectly obtained in violation of the chapter. ( Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338 (1939).) There is, however, no intention to change the attenuation rule. . . . Nor generally to press the scope of the suppression role beyond present search and seizure law. . . . But it does apply across the board in both Federal and State proceeding[s]. . . . And it is not limited to criminal proceedings. Such a suppression rule is necessary and proper to protect privacy. . . . The provision thus forms an integral part of the system of limitations designed to protect privacy. Along with the criminal and civil remedies, it should serve to guarantee that the standards of the new chapter will sharply curtail the unlawful interception of wire and oral communications."
"[Section 2518(10)(a)] must be read in connection with sections 2515 and 2517, discussed above, which it limits. It provides the remedy for the right created by section 2515. [Except for its inapplicability to grand jury proceedings and an absence of intent to grant jurisdiction to federal courts over Congress,] [o]therwise, the scope of the provision is intended to be comprehensive."
"knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication in violation of this subsection,"
and § 2515 ties the propriety of suppression of evidence to the impropriety of its "disclosure," to hold that statutory violations committed in the Justice Department's internal approval and submission procedures with respect to wiretap applications preclude disclosure in court would be to attribute to Congress an intent to impose substantial criminal penalties for "every defect in processing applications." Brief for United States 38. Apart from the fact that a majority of the Court in United States v. Chavez, post, p. 416 U. S. 562 , has concluded that not every defect will warrant suppression, it is evident that § 2511 does not impose criminal liability unless disclosure is "willful" and unless the information was known to have been obtained in violation of § 2511(1). Clearly, the circumstances under which suppression of evidence would be required are not necessarily the same as those under which a criminal violation of Title III would be found.
We are also of the view that the evidence obtained from the extended authorizations of October 22 and November 6 for the installation and use of the pen register device on Giordano's telephone was inadmissible because derived from the invalid wire interception that began on October 16. See n 2, supra. The application for the October 22 extension attached the logs of telephone conversations monitored under the October 16 order and asserted that these logs revealed the "continued use of the telephone . . . for conversations regarding illegal tracking in narcotics." App. 55. In these circumstances, it appears to us that the illegally monitored conversations should be considered a critical element in extending the pen register authority. We have been furnished with nothing to indicate that the pen register extension of November 6 should be accorded any different treatment.
obtained under the two "pen register" [ Footnote 2/1 ] extension orders and under the November 6 extension of the interception order must also be suppressed.
These are the pertinent facts. On October 8, 1970, the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland authorized the use of a pen register device to monitor and record for a 14-day period all numbers dialed from a telephone listed to respondent Giordano. There is no dispute that the pen register order was based on probable cause, and was therefore lawful under the Fourth Amendment. On October 16, 1970, the District Court issued an order authorizing the interception of wire communications to and from Giordano's telephone for a period not to exceed 21 days. There is likewise no dispute that the wiretap order was based on probable cause. The defect in the application for this order was not the strength of the Government's showing on the merits of its request, but the authorization of the application by the Executive Assistant to the Attorney General, rather than by one of the officials specifically designated in 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1). As a result of this procedural irregularity, both the contents of communications intercepted under the October 16 wiretap order and any "evidence derived therefrom" must be suppressed. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2515 and 2518(10)(a).
6, 1970. On the latter date the District Court also extended the intercept authority for a maximum additional period of 15 days. All three extension orders were based in part, but only in part, on evidence obtained under the invalid wiretap order of October 16. The wiretap extension order, unlike the original intercept order, was not marred by the defect of improper authorization.
however, for the reason that information was used to obtain those extension orders from a Title III wiretap which, for reasons appearing later in this opinion, was defective. The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine requires the suppression of all pen register information obtained under the subsequent orders. Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338 . . . (1939); 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(a)."
340 F.Supp. 1033, 1041 (Md.1972). The Court of Appeals did not mention the point. 469 F.2d 522 (CA4 1972).
Appeals affirmed on a different ground entirely. It held the original order invalid because the application for it had been approved by the Executive Assistant to the Attorney General, rather than by one of the officials designated in 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1). The defect of improper authorization, unlike the misidentification problem, arose only in connection with the original wiretap order. Perhaps through simple oversight, the Court of Appeals failed to consider the fate of the evidence obtained under the extension. Thus, neither of the lower courts ruled on the derivative evidence question.
Today we affirm the suppression of evidence obtained under the original wiretap order for the same reason adopted by the Court of Appeals -- the defect of improper authorization. As noted above, this defect did not occur in the application for the wiretap extension order. Today we also hold that misidentification of the approving authority does not render inadmissible evidence obtained pursuant to a resulting interception order. United States v. Chavez, post, p. 416 U. S. 562 . This decision removes the sole basis advanced by the District Court for suppressing the telephone conversations intercepted under the wiretap extension order, and requires us to consider whether that evidence should be suppressed by reason of the improper authorization of the application for the original order. In doing so, it is important to note that we are the first court to consider this aspect of the case.
obtained under the three extension orders. In my view, the application to this case of well established principles, principles developed by the courts to effectuate constitutional guarantees and adopted by Congress to effectuate the statutory guarantees of Title III, demonstrates that the majority's conclusion is error. As will appear, the same analysis governs all three extension orders, but it may clarify my position to deal with the two pen register extension orders in Part I, below, and to reserve discussion of the November 6 extension of the wiretap for Part II.
The installation of a pen register device to monitor and record the numbers dialed from a particular telephone line is not governed by Title III. This was the conclusion of the District Court in the instant case and of the courts in United States v. King, 335 F.Supp. 523, 548-549 (SD Cal.1971), and in United States v. Vega, 52 F.R.D. 503, 507 (EDNY 1971). This conclusion rests on the fact that the device does not hear sound, and therefore does not accomplish any "interception" of wire communications as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4) -- "the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device" (emphasis added). Any doubt of the correctness of this interpretation is allayed by reference to the legislative history of Title III. The Report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in discussing the scope of the statute explicitly states "[t]he use of a pen register,' for example, would be permissible." S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 90 (1968).
with the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment. [ Footnote 2/4 ] In this case, the Government secured a court order, the equivalent for this purpose of a search warrant, for each of the two extensions of its authorization to use a pen register. The District Court seemed to assume that, because these extension orders were based in part on tainted evidence, information obtained pursuant thereto must necessarily be suppressed under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. 340 F.Supp. at 1041. That is not the law.
The District Court relied on Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338 (1939). In that decision, the Court held that a statutory prohibition of unlawfully obtained evidence encompassed derivative evidence as well. But the Court also reaffirmed that the connection between unlawful activity and evidence offered at trial may become "so attenuated as to dissipate the taint," id. at 308 U. S. 341 , and that facts improperly obtained may nevertheless be proved if knowledge of them is based on an independent source. Ibid. In its constitutional aspect, the principle is illustrated by Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963). It is, in essence, that the derivative taint of illegal activity does not extend to the ends of the earth, but only until it is dissipated by an intervening event. Of course, the presence of an independent source would always suffice.
"There is authority, and none to the contrary, that, when a warrant issues upon an affidavit containing both proper and improper grounds, and the proper grounds -- considered alone -- are more than sufficient to support a finding of probable cause, inclusion of the improper grounds does not vitiate the entire affidavit and invalidate the warrant."
cause made prior to, and therefore undeniably independent of, the invalid wiretap. The affidavit supporting the first extension of the pen register order incorporated the allegations contained in the affidavit submitted for the original order and provided the additional untainted information that Giordano had sold heroin to a narcotics agent on October 17, 1970. The affidavit for the second extension of the pen register order is not included in the record, but there is no reason to doubt that it made a similar incorporation by reference of the earlier, untainted allegations. I would hold the evidence obtained under the first pen register extension order admissible and remand the case for determination of whether evidence obtained under the second extension should be admitted as well.
The basis for the majority's conclusion to the contrary is far from apparent. In the final footnote to its opinion, the Court states that the evidence obtained under the defective original wiretap order "should be considered a critical element in extending the pen register authority." The majority does not suggest, however, that the original pen register order was based on anything less than probable cause. Nor does it deny that the affidavit supporting the extension of the pen register authority fully incorporated the earlier untainted allegations. And, finally, the majority does not contradict the established principle that a warrant based on an affidavit containing tainted allegations may nevertheless be valid if the independent and lawful information stated in the affidavit shows probable cause. In light of these significant silences, the majority's bare assertion that the tainted evidence obtained under the original wiretap order was a "critical element" in the extension of the pen register authority is, to me, an unexplained conclusion -- not a rationale.
"Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial. . . ."
v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963)."
S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 96. Thus, although the validity of a wiretap order depends on the satisfaction of certain statutory conditions in addition to the constitutional requirement of probable cause, the principle developed in 416 U. S. The question is not whether the application for that order relied in part on communications intercepted under the invalid original order but whether, putting aside that tainted evidence, the independent and lawful information stated in the supporting affidavit suffices to show both probable cause and satisfaction of the various additional requirements of Title III. [ Footnote 2/7 ] United States v.
Iannelli, 339 F.Supp. 171 (WD Pa.1972); United States v. Ceraso, 355 F.Supp. 126 (MD Pa.1973).
the Government's request for the wiretap extension order.
The affidavit also provided additional untainted information to support the application for the extension order. It set forth, for example, the circumstances of Giordano's sale of $3,800 worth of heroin to an undercover agent on the day following issuance of the original wiretap order. Moreover, it recounted in great detail highly suspicious conduct observed by federal agents keeping Giordano under physical surveillance. [ Footnote 2/8 ] Like the allegations incorporated by reference from the earlier affidavits, this additional untainted information was relevant both to the constitutional requirement of probable cause and to the various statutory criteria for issuance of an intercept order. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3).
In light of the substantiality and detail of the untainted allegations offered in support of the application for the wiretap extension order, I find no basis for the majority's rather summary conclusion that the communications intercepted under that extension order were derivatively tainted by the improper authorization of the application for the original wiretap order. Because neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals has considered this question, I would remand the case with instructions that the issue be settled in accord with the principles set forth in this opinion.
A pen register is a mechanical device attached to a given telephone line and usually installed at a central telephone facility. It records on a paper tape all numbers dialed from that line. It does not identify the telephone numbers from which incoming calls originated, nor does it reveal whether any call, either incoming or outgoing, was completed. Its use does not involve any monitoring of telephone conversations. The mechanical complexities of a pen register are explicated in the opinion of the District Court. 340 F.Supp. 1033, 1038-1041 (Md.1972).
"The application and order relating to the extension of the wiretap are defective for the same reasons as the original application and order."
340 F.Supp. at 1060. Plainly, this reference to the "same reasons" concerns the failure to comply literally with §§ 2518(1)(a) and (4)(d) identification requirements and has nothing to do with any derivative evidence rule.
The Government suggests that the use of a pen register may not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. I need not address this question, for, in my view, the constitutional guarantee, assuming its applicability, was satisfied in this case.
All of the cases cited are directly on point. There are a few additional decisions that indirectly support the general proposition stated above. United States v. Cantor, 470 F.2d 890 (CA3 1972), involved a defendant's claim that the Government violated his Fourth Amendment rights by refusing to disclose to him certain evidence that had been used to establish probable cause for issuance of a warrant. The court rejected that claim on the ground that there was adequate independent justification to find probable cause. Id. at 893. The cases of United States v. Jones, 475 F.2d 723 (CA5 1973), and United States v. Upshaw, 448 F.2d 1218 (CA5 1971), stand for the proposition that the validity of a search warrant based in part on erroneous statements is determined by evaluating the sufficiency of the other allegations. Finally, United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051 (CA9 1970), involved a search warrant based on an affidavit containing two paragraphs that invited the magistrate to find probable cause by drawing a negative inference from the defendant's exercise of his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. The court held the validity of the warrant was to be determined on the basis of the other allegations in the affidavit.
"It must be emphasized that, where such tainted information comprises more than a very minor portion of that found in an affidavit supporting a warrant to search, the warrant must be held invalid."
Id. at 35 (emphasis in original). The other case is United States v. Nelson, 459 F.2d 884 (1972), where the affidavit for a search warrant relied on information derived from two prior warrantless searches. Although the court suggested several reasons for suppressing the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant, the principal basis seems to have been the finding that the untainted allegations did not constitute probable cause. Thus, neither case contradicts the decisions of the District of Columbia, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits cited in the text.
The majority seems to believe that this principle, while fully applicable to original wiretap orders, is wholly inapplicable to extension orders. This, at least, is the most reasonable construction of the majority's discussion of §§ 2518(1)(e) and (f). Ante at 416 U. S. 532 -533. Those provisions require that an application for an extension order include "a full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications" and "a statement setting forth the results thus far obtained from the interception. . . ." According to the majority, the fact that law enforcement authorities complied with §§ 2518(1)(e) and (f) by including in the application for the extension order information regarding the earlier wiretap necessarily and automatically rendered the extension order invalid, regardless of whether the independent and untainted information in the application for the extension satisfied the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and § 2518(3).
With all respect, I find this a baffling interpretation of the statute. Certainly there is nothing in the language or history of §§ 2518(1)(e) and (f) to suggest that Congress intended these provisions to except all extension orders from the independent source doctrine. Nor is there any suggestion in the language or history of § 2515, which is the statutory analogue to the constitutional doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree, that Congress intended to distinguish between original wiretap orders and extension orders in determining the extent of the suppression remedy. Finally, there is nothing in logic to indicate why Congress would have wanted to make such a distinction, and there is no basis in reason to suppose that Congress, if it had intended such a result, would have failed to leave any evidence of that intent.
"Giordano exhibits the characteristics of a high-level narcotics trafficker -- extreme caution. When traveling, he continually uses various counter-surveillance techniques. In his transactions, he limits his contacts to a small number of trusted individuals."

References: § 510
 § 2516
 § 2516
 § 2515
 § 2518
 § 2518

§ 2516
 § 2515
 § 2518
 § 2516
 § 2516
 § 510
 § 245
 § 2516
 § 2518
 § 2518
 § 2518
 § 2518
 § 2518
 § 2518

§ 2518
 § 2518

§ 2511

§ 2515

§ 2516

§ 2518

§ 2520
 § 2516
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2516
 v. 
 § 2511
 § 2520
 § 5
 § 2516
 § 503
 § 506
 § 0
 § 2518
 § 2516
 § 2518
 § 3803
 v. 
 § 8
 § 2518
 § 2518
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2515
 v. 
 § 2511
 § 2511
 § 2516
 v. 
 § 2518
 § 2516
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2510
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 2518
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2518
 § 2515