Opinion ID: 449467
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lopez and Figueroa.

Text: 43 The claims of appellants Lopez and Figueroa rest on somewhat different grounds. They were recipients of calls placed by Diaz; thus they were not inside the prison at the time their telephone conversations were intercepted, and the concerns surrounding the wiretapping of two quasi-public prison telephones used by 59 inmates do not apply to them. Moreover, they were conversing with prisoners whose calls were covered by the wiretap order, and the reference to others as yet unknown in the first order included individuals outside the prison such as Lopez and Figueroa. 44 As to Lopez, almost all of his conversations with Diaz occurred after the first extension order in which both Diaz and Lopez were named as targets. The few conversations that occurred during the period of the original order which named neither of them were properly intercepted for the same reasons discussed above in connection with Diaz. Significantly, the second of Diaz's monitored calls was to Lopez (AMATO) and by itself established reasonable justification for further monitoring. Furthermore, the government need not establish probable cause as to all participants in a conversation. If probable cause has been shown as to one such participant, the statements of the other participants may be intercepted if pertinent to the investigation. United States v. Tortorello, 480 F.2d at 775. 45 As to Figueroa, since all of his intercepted conversations with Diaz occurred after Diaz had been specifically named in the wiretap order, the interception of his conversations did not violate the fourth amendment. Id. 46