Opinion ID: 765611
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Wiretap Evidence

Text: 52 Escobar challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence derived from intercepted telephone communications, which he says violated Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522. 53 In March 1990 the district court issued a wiretap order authorizing the interception of communications on telephone line 809-256-2600, which was installed at Escobar's business, Sueno Real Construction Company (Sueno Real). According to the district court's findings (which are not challenged on appeal), Escobar broke the telephone's receiver in February or March 1990 and refused to pay the telephone bills after becoming upset that people had used the Sueno Real telephone to make long-distance phone calls. Cedres thereafter extended a phone line to Cedres's grocery business, Colmado El Coqui, which was adjacent to Sueno Real, and paid the phone bills to keep the line in service. Escobar knew that Cedres had extended the phone line, and in fact used the extension line in Colmado El Coqui himself on several occasions. 54 Escobar argues that the intercepted communications must be suppressed because they occurred at Colmado El Coqui, rather than at the location specified in the wiretap order, Sueno Real. To support this contention Escobar relies on 18 U.S.C. § 2518(4), which provides that the order authorizing an interception specify five items, including the nature and location of the communications facilities as to which, or the place where, authority to intercept is granted. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(4)(b). 22 The order's authorization, he argues, was limited to the telephone line at issue, which in turn was limited to the confines of Sueno Real. 55 We agree that by its terms the order authorized interception of conversations occurring on the telephone line denominated 809-256-2600, which was located in Sueno Real. We find nothing in the statute, however, that requires the wiretap order to have identified the particular locations of various extensions of that telephone line, nor does Escobar cite any authority for that proposition. The telephone line remained located in Sueno Real, as provided in the wiretap order, even though it had apparently been rigged with a long extension cord to enable a person to access the line from a remote location (i.e., the adjacent Colmado El Coqui). 56 Moreover, assuming arguendo that section 2518(4)(b) does require an order to identify the particular locations of various extensions of the same telephone line, it is well-settled that not every failure to comply fully with any requirement provided in Title III necessitates suppression. See United States v. Cunningham, 113 F.3d 289, 293-94 (1st Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413, 433-34 (1977); United States v. Chavez, 416 U.S. 562, 574-75 (1974); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2515, 2518(10)(a). Rather, violations of even . . . central requirements do not mandate suppression if the government demonstrates to the court's satisfaction that the statutory purpose has been achieved despite the violation. Cunningham, 113 F.3d at 293-94 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 696 F.2d 115, 121 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). To the extent that Title III is designed to protect privacy interests similar to those reflected in the Fourth Amendment, see id. at 294, that statutory purpose was served by the district court's finding of probable cause to intercept and by the order's inclusion of other items of particularity, including the identity of the person whose communications were to be intercepted, the nature and location of the telephone line to be intercepted, a particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted, and a statement of the particular offense to which the communications relate, see 18 U.S.C. § 2518(4). Inclusion of the particular location of various extensions of the telephone line (whose location was properly identified in the order) would not have substantially furthered the statutory objectives of protecting privacy interests and ensuring that intercept procedures are used only in those situations clearly calling for the employment of this extraordinary investigative device. United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 527 (1974). The district court properly denied Escobar's suppression motion. 23