Opinion ID: 515723
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Compliance with authorization

Text: 24 Armone and Gallo also challenge the use of evidence derived from electronic surveillance of the home and phone of co-defendant Angelo Ruggiero. Between November 1981 and June 1982, six orders were issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York authorizing the government to conduct electronic surveillance of the home and phone of Ruggiero. Neither Armone nor Gallo were named as targets of the surveillance. The order issued on April 5, 1982 specified, inter alia, that the [i]nterception ... be suspended immediately when it is determined ... that none of the named interceptees ... are participants in the oral or wire conversations. Armone and Gallo contend that the government failed to comply with this restriction, and thus, all of the Ruggiero surveillance should be suppressed. We disagree. 25 Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(10)(a)(iii) provides that [a]ny aggrieved person may make a motion to suppress wiretap evidence when the interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization. This provision, however, is to be construed in accordance with standing requirements usually applied to suppression claims under the fourth amendment. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 175-76 & n. 9, 89 S.Ct. 961, 967-68 n. 9, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); see S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1968 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2112, 2179-80. The Supreme Court has held that suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. Alderman, 394 U.S. at 171-72, 89 S.Ct. at 965-66. Here, the arguments advanced by Armone and Gallo do no more than assert Ruggiero's own right to minimize the surveillance of his home and phone. Defendants were not named as targets of the surveillance, nor were they part of the conversations that allegedly exceeded the restrictions contained in the authorizing order. Applying the usual standards governing claims of fourth amendment violations, we find that Armone and Gallo lack standing to contest the Ruggiero surveillance. See United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 526 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910, 97 S.Ct. 2978, 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977).