Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/429/413/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-12-10 11:07:32
Document Index: 333731191

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 8', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518']

UNITED STATES V. DONOVAN, 429 U. S. 413 (1977) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 429 > UNITED STATES V. DONOVAN, 429 U. S. 413 (1977)
UNITED STATES V. DONOVAN, 429 U. S. 413 (1977)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 429 U. S. 413
Title 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(b)(iv), which is part of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, requires the Government to include in its wiretap applications "the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted." Section 2518(8)(d) requires the judge to whom a wiretap application is made to cause to be served on the persons named in the wiretap order or application an inventory, which must give notice of entry of the order or application, state the disposition of the application, and indicate whether communications were intercepted, and further provides that the judge may order similar notice to other parties to intercepted communications if he concludes that such action is in the interest of justice. Evidence derived from wiretaps must be suppressed under § 2518(10)(a)(i) if "the communication was unlawfully intercepted." On December 26, 1972, the Government applied for an extension of an order authorizing a wiretap interception of gambling-related conversations of certain named individuals other than respondents Donovan, Robbins, and Buzzacco and "others as yet unknown" to or from four listed telephones, and the Government did not identify these respondents in the application even though it had previously learned they were discussing illegal gambling activities with the named subjects. The District Court authorized a 15-day interception. On February 21, 1973, the Government submitted to the court a proposed order giving notice of the interception to 37 persons, the court signed the order, and an inventory notice was served on the listed persons, including respondents Donovan, Robbins, and Buzzacco. Subsequently, after the Government submitted the names of two additional persons whose identities allegedly had been omitted inadvertently from the initial list, the court entered an amended order giving notice to those individuals, but as a result of "administrative oversight" respondents Merlo and Lauer were not included in either list of names and were never served with an inventory notice. Respondents, along with others, were indicted for federal gambling offenses. On respondents' motion, the District Court suppressed as to respondents Donovan, Robbins, and Buzzacco all evidence derived from the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(a) Here the statutorily imposed preconditions to judicial authorization (a determination that normal investigative techniques have failed or are unlikely to succeed, and probable cause to believe that (i) an individual is engaged in criminal activity, (ii) particular communications concerning the offense will be obtained through interception, and (iii) the target facilities are being used in connection with the specified criminal activity) were satisfied, and the issuing judge was simply unaware that additional persons might be overheard engaging in incriminating chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, in all but Part II-A of which BURGER, C.J.,joined, and in Parts I and II of which STEVENS, J., joined. BURGER, C.J.,filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 429 U. S. 440. MARSHALL, J., filed an opinion dissenting in part, in which BRENNAN, J., joined, post, p. 429 U. S. 445. STEVENS, J., filed a statement concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 429 U. S. 451. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On November 28, 1972, a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation applied to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for an order authorizing a wiretap interception in accordance with Title III. [Footnote 1] The application requested authorization to intercept chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
gambling-related communications over two telephones at one address in North Olmstead, Ohio, and two other telephones at a home in Canton, Ohio. The accompanying affidavit recited that the telephones were being used by Albert Kotoch, Joseph Spaganlo, and George Florea to conduct an illegal gambling business, and that in conducting that business they chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
would place calls to and receive calls from various persons, three of whom were also named in the wiretap application. [Footnote 2] The affiant also stated that the Government's informants would refuse to testify against the persons named in the application, that telephone records alone would be insufficient to support a gambling conviction, and that normal investigative techniques were unlikely to be fruitful. Pursuant to the Government's request, the District Court authorized for a period of 15 days the interception of gambling-related wire communications of Kotoch, Spaganlo, Florea, three named individuals other than the respondents, and "others, as yet unknown," to and from the four listed telephones. [Footnote 3] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
During the course of the wiretap, the Government learned that respondents Donovan, Robbins, and Buzzacco were discussing illegal gambling activities with the named subjects. On December 26, 1972, the Government applied for an extension of the initial intercept order. [Footnote 4] This time it sought authorization to intercept gambling-related conversations of Kotoch, Spaganlo, Florea, two other named individuals, and "others as yet unknown," but it did not identify respondents Donovan, Buzzacco, and Robbins in this second application. [Footnote 5] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On February 21, 1973, the Government submitted to the District Court a proposed order giving notice of the interceptions to 37 persons, a group which the Government apparently thought included all individuals who could be identified as having discussed gambling over the monitored telephones. [Footnote 6] The District Court signed the proposed order, and an inventory notice was served on the listed persons, including respondents Donovan, Buzzacco, and Robbins. On September 11, 1973, after the Government submitted the names of two additional persons whose identities allegedly had been omitted inadvertently from the initial list, the District Court entered an amended order giving notice to those individuals. As a result of what the Government labels "administrative oversight," respondents Merlo and Lauer were not included in either list of names, and were never served with inventory notice. [Footnote 7] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 513 F.2d 337 (1975). [Footnote 8] On the identification issue, the court held that the wiretap application must identify every person whose conversations relating to the subject criminal activity the Government has probable cause to believe it will intercept. Agreeing with the District Court that at the time of the December 26 application the Government had probable cause to believe that it would overhear Donovan, Robbins, and Buzzacco "committing the offense," the Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression of evidence derived from chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The United States contends that § 2518(1)(b)(iv) requires that a wiretap application identify only the principal target of the interception, and that § 2518(8)(d) does not require the Government to provide the issuing judge with a list of all identifiable persons who were overheard in the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We turn first to the identification requirements of § 2518(1)(b)(iv). That provision requires a wiretap application to specify "the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted." In construing that language, this Court already has ruled that the Government is not required to identify an individual in the application unless it has probable cause to believe (i) that the individual is engaged in the criminal activity under investigation and (ii) that the individual's conversations will be intercepted over the target telephone. United States v. Kahn, 415 U. S. 143 (1974). The question at issue here is whether the Government is required to name all such individuals. [Footnote 11] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Whatever the merits of such a statutory scheme, we find little support for it in the language and structure of Title III or in the legislative history. The statutory language itself refers only to "the person, if known, committing the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
offense and whose communications are to be intercepted." That description is as applicable to a suspect placing calls to the target telephone as it is to a suspect placing calls from that telephone. It is true, as the United States suggests, that, when read in the context of the other subdivisions of § 2518(1)(b), an argument can be made that Congress focused in subdivision (iv) on the primary user of the target telephone. But it is also clear from other sections of the statute that Congress expected that wiretap applications would name more than one individual. For example, Title III requires that inventory notice be served upon "the persons named in the order or the application." 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(d) (emphasis added). And § 2518(1)(e) requires that an intercept application disclose all previous intercept applications "involving any of the same persons . . . specified in the application" (emphasis added). It may well be that Congress anticipated that a given application would cover more than one telephone or that several suspects would use one telephone, and that an application for those reasons alone would require identification of more than one individual. But nothing on the face of the statute suggests that Congress intended to remove from the identification requirement those suspects whose intercepted communications originated on a telephone other than that listed in the wiretap application. [Footnote 14] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Controlling-Crime Through More Effective Law Enforcement, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 77, § 8(a)(3), and 1006, § 2518(4)(a) (1967) (emphasis added). Thus, even at this early stage, it was recognized that an application could identify several individuals, and there is no indication that the identification would be limited to principal targets. S. 917 combined the major provisions of S. 675 and S. 2050 and eventually was enacted. While it was pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, this Court decided Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967). S. 917 was then redrafted to conform to Katz as well as Berger, and the identification provision was added at that time. The Senate Report states that the requirements set forth in the various chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
subdivisions of 2518(1)(b), including the identification requirement at issue here, were intended to "reflect . . . the constitutional command of particularization." S.Rep. No. 1097, supra at 101, citing Berger v. New York, supra, at 388 U. S. 58-60, and Katz v. United States, supra at 389 U. S. 354-356. The United States now contends that, although it may be that Congress read Berger and Katz to require, as a constitutional matter, that the subject of the surveillance be named if known, Congress would hardly have read those cases as requiring the naming of all parties likely to be overheard. [Footnote 15] Brief for United States 226. But to the extent that Congress thought it was meeting the constitutional commands of particularization established in Berger and Katz, Congress may have read those cases as mandating a broad identification requirement. The statute that we confronted in Berger required identification of "the person or persons" whose communications were to be overheard. 388 U.S. at 388 U. S. 59. And we expressly noted that that provision "[did] no more than identify the person whose constitutionally protected area is to be invaded. . . ." Ibid. Given the statute at issue in Berger and our comment upon it, Congress may have concluded that the Constitution required the naming, in a wiretap application, of all suspects rather than just the primary user. [Footnote 16] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The other statutory provision at issue in this case is 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(d), which provides that the judge shall cause to be served on the persons named in the order or application an inventory, which must give notice of the entry of the order or application, state the disposition of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Currently, the policy of the Justice Department is to provide the issuing judge with the name of every person who has been overheard as to whom there is any reasonable possibility of indictment. Brief for United States 39. Because it fails to assure that the necessary range of information chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
There is no basis on the facts of this case to suggest that the authorization orders are facially insufficient, or that the interception was not conducted in conformity with the orders. Thus, only § 2518(10)(a)(i) is relevant: were the communications "unlawfully intercepted" given the violations of §§ 2518(1)(b)(iv) and 2518(8)(d)? [Footnote 22] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In the instant case, the Court of Appeals concluded that both the identification requirement of § 2518(1)(b)(iv) and the notice requirement of § 2518(8)(d) played a "central role" in the statutory framework, and for that reason affirmed the District Court's order suppressing relevant evidence. Although both statutory requirements are undoubtedly important, we do not think that the failure to comply fully with those provisions renders unlawful an intercept order that in all other respects satisfies the statutory requirements. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
416 U.S. at 416 U. S. 528. Here, however, the statutorily imposed preconditions to judicial authorization were satisfied, and the issuing judge was simply unaware that additional persons might be overheard engaging in incriminating conversations. In no meaningful sense can it be said that the presence of that information as to additional targets would have precluded judicial authorization of the intercept. [Footnote 23] Rather, this case resembles Chavez, where we held that a wiretap was not unlawful simply because the issuing judge was incorrectly informed as to which designated official had authorized the application. The Chavez intercept was lawful because the Justice Department had performed its task of prior approval, and the instant intercept is lawful because the application provided sufficient information to enable the issuing judge to determine that the statutory preconditions were satisfied. [Footnote 24] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Finally, we note that nothing in the legislative history suggests that Congress intended this broad identification requirement to play "a central, or even functional, role in guarding against unwarranted use of wiretapping or electronic surveillance." United States v. Chavez, 416 U.S. at 416 U. S. 578. Neither S. 675 nor S. 2050, the predecessor bills of S. 917, contained an identification provision. See supra at 429 U. S. 426. The only explanation given in the Senate Report for the inclusion of the broad identification provision was that it was intended to reflect what Congress perceived to be the constitutional command of particularization. This explanation was offered with respect to all the information required by § 2518(1)(b) to be set out in an intercept application. No additional guidance can be gleaned from the floor debates, since they contain no substantive discussion of the identification provision. [Footnote 25] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Nothing in the structure of the Act or this legislative history suggests that incriminating conversations are "unlawfully intercepted" whenever parties to those conversations do not receive discretionary inventory notice as a result of the Government's failure to inform the District Court of their identities. At the time inventory notice was served on the other identifiable persons, the intercept had been completed and the conversations had been "seized" under a valid intercept order. The fact that discretionary notice reached chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Although the Government was required to identify respondents Donovan, Robbins, and Buzzacco in the December 26 application for an extension of the initial intercept, failure to do so in the circumstances here presented did not warrant suppression under § 2518(10)(a)(i). Nor was suppression justified with respect to respondents Merlo and Lauer simply because the Government inadvertently omitted their names from the comprehensive list of all identifiable persons whose conversations had been overheard. We hold that this is the correct result under the provisions of Title III, but we reemphasize chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The availability of the suppression remedy for these statutory, as opposed to constitutional, violations, see nn. 15 and < a>| 15 and < a>S. 413fn19|>19, supra, turns on the provisions of Title III, rather than the judicially fashioned exclusionary rule aimed at deterring violations of Fourth Amendment rights. United States v. Giordano, 416 U. S. 505, 416 U. S. 524 (1974).
Respondents Donovan, Robbins, and Buzzacco contend that, since their names were not contained in the wiretap application, suppression is required under the express exclusionary provision of Title III, § 2518(10)(a). Their contention flies in the teeth of legislative history directly to the contrary. In the evolution of Title III, Congress considered and rejected a proposed amendment which would have expressly conferred the exclusionary benefit that respondents now seek. Specifically, Senators Long and Hart proposed the addition of a fourth subdivision to the suppression provision contained in § 2518(10)(a). 114 Cong.Rec. 14718 (1968). Had that proposal been adopted, it would have allowed suppression of intercepted conversations at the behest of any aggrieved person on the ground that he or she was not named in chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Id. at 14751. Under these circumstances, the exact words of the statute provide the surest guide to determining Congress' intent, and we would do well to confine ourselves to that area. The statutory provision before us requires the wiretap application to specify the "identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted." 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(b)(iv). (Emphasis supplied.) As the Court correctly indicates, the identification requirement chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The Court emphasizes, however, that the statute expressly recognizes that more than one person may be named in a wiretap application. Ante at 429 U. S. 425. That is indeed true. See §§ 2518(1)(e), (8)(d). But I would think this is all the more reason for focusing upon the precise language in the provision establishing explicit requirements for an application. Since Congress expressly contemplated that applications might contain more than one name, its failure in § 2518(1)(b)(iv) to require the naming of "any person" or "the persons" whose communications are to be intercepted must mean that an open-ended identification requirement was never intended. In other words, Congress reasonably foresaw that, for a variety of reasons, actual wiretap application might contain the names of more than one person. But Congress did not translate its recognition of what an application chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
United States v. Kahn, 415 U. S. 143, 415 U. S. 155 n. 15 (1974). (Emphasis supplied.) Hence, the statute, as it presently stands, comports entirely with Fourth Amendment requirements, and thus achieves the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In short, the Court has redrafted a statute passed by Congress to make it identical to a statutory provision found valueless by this Court a few years ago in the Berger case. This undertaking, unfortunately, is not entirely without consequence, notwithstanding the Court's refusal to approve suppression of the evidence here. Among other things, federal officers are potentially subject to a civil damages action, with compensatory damages of not less than $1,000, plus punitive damages, plus reasonable attorneys' fees. [Footnote 2/2] Nor is this federal remedy exclusive. State-provided damages remedies are not preempted. S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 107 (1968). Damages awards aside, the Court's opinion -- albeit in dictum -- hints that suppression may indeed be in the offing if an intentional "violation" is shown. Finally, district judges will now be put to the task, at least in some cases, of determining whether probable cause exists with respect to each person listed in the application. § 2518(3)(d). Judges may well wonder why such burdens are imposed upon them for a gain which the Court found illusory in the Berger case. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The Court has rejected that argument, however, see United States v. Chavez, supra; United States v. Giordano, 416 U. S. 505 (1974), and nothing is to be gained by renewing it here. But even under the standard set forth chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Yet in determining whether the identification requirement "directly and substantially implement[s] the congressional intention to limit the use of intercept procedures," United States v. Giordano, supra at 416 U. S. 527, or plays a "substantive role" in the "regulatory system" established by Congress, United States v. Chavez, supra, at 416 U. S. 578, the Court ignores the requirement's function as a statutory "trigger." In its analysis, the Court focuses solely on whether a list of additional chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The Court's reasoning is doubly flawed. First, a judge is not required to issue a warrant if the prerequisites of § 2518(3) are satisfied; he may do so. Once he determines that the § 2518(3) requirements have been met, he still must decide whether the invasion of privacy by the proposed wiretap is justified under the circumstances. [Footnote 3/2] Second, what is at issue here is more than a simple list of names. Section 2518(1)(e) requires that the Government disclose to the court the history of all prior applications to intercept the communications of anyone named in a warrant application. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
It is true, as the Court notes, ante at 429 U. S. 436 n. 23, [Footnote 3/5] that there is no allegation in this case that, had the District Court been informed that the Government expected to overhear respondents Donovan, Buzzacco, and Robbins discussing illegal gambling activities, it would not have issued a warrant. But that fact is irrelevant to an analysis of the role of the naming requirement in the regulatory system established by Congress. In Giordano, the Court rejected the argument that the Attorney General's failure to authorize the application for a warrant could be disregarded because the Attorney General had later ratified the application, thus demonstrating that he would have approved it originally. 416 U.S. at 416 U. S. 523-524, n. 12. The important consideration was whether the requirement of high-level authorization was designed to play an important role, not whether it would have mattered in the particular case. The same analysis should be used here. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Again, the Court takes too narrow a view of the provision at issue, ignoring its place in the system Congress has created to restrain wiretapping. That system involves not only direct chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
But that hope is a poor substitute for certainty that the Government will make every effort to fulfill its responsibilities under Title III. We can obtain that certainty only by according full recognition to the role of the naming and notice chanroblesvirtualawlibrary