Opinion ID: 769603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ten Day Report

Text: 19 The appellants contend that intercepted conversations after November 14, 1996 relating to the murder-for-hire plot should be suppressed because the government misled the issuing judge about its progress in that investigation. Intercepted murder-for-hire phone conversations were reported to the issuing judge in a Ten Day Report on November 14, 1996, without mentioning that the government had allegedly identified the victim and planned to warn him. 20 On November 10, law enforcement agents believed that Percy Bacon was the target in the murder-for-hire plot, but they were unsure at [that] time. On November 13, a DEA report stated that law enforcement agents intended to warn Bacon because they believed that a murder contract had been placed on him. The next day, the government's Ten Day Report to the issuing judge informed the court about two telephone calls in which Bennett discussed the murder-for-hire plan, but that report did not disclose that the government had identified Bacon as the possible victim, nor did it mention the information in the DEA report. The government wrote in its Ten Day Report that the intended victim had not yet been certainly identified. 21 Contrary to appellants' contention, the government did not mislead the issuing judge. A cautious decision to warn a possible victim does not imply that law enforcement officials knew with certainty the true identity of the intended victim. Indeed, the person the government warned, Bacon, turned out not to be the person who was killed. The Ten Day report was not misleading.