Opinion ID: 413377
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Authorization of application

Text: 14 Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2510-2520 (1976 & Supp. V 1981) prescribes the procedures for obtaining the necessary judicial approval of electronic surveillance. The statute provides in pertinent part: 15 The Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General, may authorize an application to a Federal judge of competent jurisdiction for    an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications    [.] 6 16 Assistant Attorney General Litvack had been specially designated on January 19, 1981 by Attorney General Civiletti. Mr. Litvack authorized the application in this case on February 19, 1981. However, on January 22 Attorney General Civiletti had been succeeded by William French Smith. The issue before the court is whether the special designation of Mr. Litvack by Attorney General Civiletti satisfies the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2516(1) for an electronic surveillance application that was made only after Mr. Civiletti had left office. 17 The government argues that the statutory requirement was satisfied by the January 19, 1981 special designation and that no new designation was required. 7 For support, the government relies on the general proposition that orders and decisions of one Attorney General must continue in effect until changed by a successor to the office; to require express revalidation of all grants of authority would throw into chaos the ongoing operations of the Department of Justice. See, e.g., In re Weir, 520 F.2d 662, 667 (9th Cir.1975) (authorization of grant of immunity continues under successor); United States v. Morton Salt Co., 216 F.Supp. 250, 256 (D.Minn.1962) (authority of Justice Department attorneys to appear before grand jury continues), aff'd, 382 U.S. 44, 86 S.Ct. 181, 15 L.Ed.2d 36 (1963). 18 However, arguments about the need for administrative continuity miss the mark in this case. The power to authorize electronic surveillance applications is uniquely circumscribed by statute. Congress has identified a very limited category of officials who may legally wield this power. Section 2516's restrictions thereby ensure that decisionmaking is centralize[d] in a publicly responsible official subject to the political process. S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 97 (1968). Furthermore, should abuses occur, the statute guarantees that the lines of responsibility lead to an identifiable person. Id. 19 There is no doubt that Section 2516 is one of those central safeguards in the statute which, if violated, warrants suppression. 8 However, despite appellant's arguments to the contrary, the authorization by Assistant Attorney General Litvack adequately satisfies the purposes of the statutory provision. Mr. Litvack had been specially designated by Attorney General Civiletti within the literal meaning of Section 2516(1). He was a clearly identifiable and politically accountable person within the Justice Department. 9 20 Still, the court is concerned about the lack of diligence and forethought that characterize the actions of the Justice Department in this case. Questions about the legality of relying on outdated special designations have arisen before 10 and should have encouraged this Administration to revalidate special designations more promptly. However, since the delay in revalidation was relatively brief and since the purposes of the statutory requirements were adequately served, we will not overturn the District Court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress.