Source: http://openjurist.org/530/f2d/657/broadway-v-city-of-montgomery-alabama
Timestamp: 2017-06-28 14:13:56
Document Index: 501506804

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2520', '§ 2520', '§ 2520', '§ 2510', '§ 2520', '§ 2520']

530 F. 2d 657 - Broadway v. City of Montgomery Alabama HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 530 F.2d.
John L. Broadway, being a fugitive from justice, is not entitled to call on the resources of an appellate court for a determination of his case. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970); Van Blaricom v. Forscht, 5 Cir., 1974, 490 F.2d 461; Fratus v. United States, 5 Cir., 1974, 496 F.2d 1190; United States v. Shelton, 5 Cir., 1975, 508 F.2d 797. It is immaterial that the custody from which he fled is that of another sovereign. United States v. Shelton, 5 Cir., 1973,482 F.2d 848, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1075, 94 S.Ct. 591, 38 L.Ed.2d 482 (1973). We therefore dismiss the appeal as to John L. Broadway.
CLAIMS OF ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiffs' claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2520
Terry and Lisenby testified that they learned about the wiretap only after it was discovered by John L. Broadway. This testimony is uncontroverted by any admissible evidence. In order to prevail under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 the remaining appellants must show that the oral communications were in fact intercepted, disclosed or used by defendants.2 The district judge observed that 'There is no evidence that any communication was disclosed or used by any defendant in this case.' He considered it unnecessary to decide the question of interception and based his judgment on the substantial evidence of defendants' innocence and the failure of plaintiffs to submit any admissible evidence to the contrary.3 Our review of the record corroborates the finding of the district judge in respect to nondisclosure and nonuse of any communication by defendants, and further supplies the answer to the question of interception. Terry emphatically denied that he ever listened to the tape, and although Lisenby was not questioned in respect to interception, his uncontroverted testimony of lack of knowledge of the existence of the wiretap prior to its discovery precludes any reasonable inference of interception.
'Interception,' as the term is used in 18 U.S.C. § 2520, is defined as:
(A)ural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4).
'Aural' is defined as 'of or relating to the ear . . . or to the sense of hearing,' Webster's Third New International Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Company (1961). Depositions of appellants Levis Broadway, James Broadway and McGraw conclusively and affirmatively show that they had no factual knowledge to substantiate the charge that defendants heard or listened to the tape.4 The only suggestion of interception by defendants came from the affidavit of appellant Segall submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The affidavit constitutes nothing more than a recital of unsupported allegations, conclusory in nature.5 As such it is insufficient to avoid summary judgment. Benton-Volvo-Metairie, Inc. v. Volvo Southwest, Inc., 5 Cir., 1973, 479 F.2d 135; Bros, Inc. v. W. E. Grace Manufacturing Co., 5 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 428. Plaintiffs have failed to negate defendants' evidence that they did not intercept, disclose or use any wiretapped communication. Thus there was no genuine issue as to the only material fact involved in the section 2520 claim, and the matter was ripe for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs' 'civil rights' claim
Plaintiffs contend in general allegations without supporting authority that apart from their claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, their civil rights were violated by the actual placing of the wiretap by defendants. In an attempt to rebut the testimony of Terry and Lisenby denying participation, plaintiffs rely on testimony from the hearing on the motion to suppress of David W. Crosland, former District Attorney in charge of the criminal prosecutions against John L. Broadway. Crosland testified that three days after the wiretap was found Terry told him that Lisenby told Terry that 'They had tapped Broadway's telephone,' and that Terry 'did not like the idea and so told Lisenby, but did not stop him from doing it.' At the same hearing Terry denied that he had told Crosland that Lisenby admitted having performed the wiretap, and Lisenby staunchly and repeatedly denied having anything to do with the matter, declaring further that he was totally ignorant of the mechanics of constructing the wiretap device. The district judge was of the opinion that the conversation between Terry and Crosland was cloaked with privilege and therefore inadmissible. We need not reach the issue of privilege, inasmuch as Crosland's testimony consisted wholly of hearsay which would not be competent evidence at trial.6 See, e.g., Emmco Insurance Co. v. Wallenius Caribbean Line, S.A., 5 Cir., 1974, 492 F.2d 508; Wells v. Shop Rite Foods, Inc., 5 Cir., 1973, 474 F.2d 838. Evidence inadmissible at trial cannot be used to avoid summary judgment. See Echaide v. Confederation of Canada Life Insurance, 5 Cir., 1972, 459 F.2d 1377; Liberty Leasing Co. v. Hillsum Sales Corporation, 5 Cir., 1967, 380 F.2d 1013.
The obvious function of summary judgment is to avoid a useless trial. Defendants have made a convincing showing that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law; plaintiffs, on the other hand, have failed to come forward with the necessary countervailing evidence to defeat summary judgment.7
The appeal of John L. Broadway is DISMISSED: Judgment in respect to the remaining plaintiffs in AFFIRMED.
18 U.S.C. § 2520 provides in pertinent part:
Ira DeMent, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress that the tape recorder had been examined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's laboratories in Washington, D.C., and that it was impossible to determine from whence it came; and that there was no admissible evidence obtained either by the FBI or in the U.S. Attorney's files which focused on the Montgomery Police Department. He further said that the wiretap equipment and the manner in which it was used was crude. Acting Police Chief Swendall testified that he had expressed the opinion to an FBI agent investigating the wiretap, that John L. Broadway himself had strung up the equipment
Levis Broadway testified:
Q. Do you know for a fact, Mrs. Broadway, that any conversation you had with your son was intercepted by the Montgomery police or by anyone else?
A. I don't know it for a fact.
She later responded to the same question:
A. I don't know it for a fact but I certainly feel it.
Joan McGraw testified:
Q. Now other than what Mr. Segall has told you, either socially or professionally, you don't know anything else that would substantiate the charge that any of these defendants intercepted or disclosed a communication which you had with John L. Broadway, is that correct?
James E. Broadway testified:
Q. Do you have any factual knowledge that the City of Montgomery or any official or police officer of the City of Montgomery disclosed or used any oral communication that you had with your boy?
My name is Robert D. Segall, and I am over the age of twenty-one years. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Alabama, and I represent Plaintiffs in the case of John L. Broadway, et al. vs. City of Montgomery, et al., C.A. No. 74--16--N. In my capacity as attorney for the said Plaintiffs, I have listened to the tape used on the wire-tap of Mr. Broadway's telephone. One or more of the Plaintiffs in this case are on that tape. The other Plaintiffs also had oral communications intercepted by the Defendants.
As attorney for the Plaintiffs, I can also state that Plaintiffs have evidence which tends to show that Defendants Terry and Lisenby conspired to commit the acts complained of by Plaintiffs. There is, therefore, an issue of fact as to who put the wire-tap on Mr. Broadway's telephone.
As appellees state in their brief, p. 40:
The statement by the witness Crosland of his alleged conversation with the defendant Terry is classic hearsay to which there is no recognized exception. A Fortiori, the statement by Crosland of what Terry said he was told by Lisenby constitutes double hearsay.
Appellants do not seriously dispute the immunity enjoyed by the City of Montgomery in regard to their alleged civil rights claim. See City of Kenosha, Wisconsin v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 93 S.Ct. 2222, 37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973). There is no evidence that the City was negligent in failing properly to train its officers, and appellants have failed to rebut evidence of Terry and Lisenby denying their participation in the wiretap. Appellants' claim of negligence against the City must, therefore, fall