Opinion ID: 660991
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DEA Supervision of the BCPD Officers

Text: 40 The appellants' third argument in favor of suppressing the intercepts is that the DEA failed to properly supervise the monitoring of the wiretaps by the BCPD officers because a DEA agent was not present during approximately 25% of the intercepts. Again, the appellants assert that this violated internal DEA requirements. 41 The trial judge found that after the wiretaps began, supervision was adequate. This finding was based on evidence that Special Agent David Rivello, the supervising DEA agent for the wiretap, was on duty 117 of the 120 days that the wiretap was operational; that he was on duty each day on which defendants claimed the BCPD officers were not supervised; that Agent Rivello typically worked from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; that his desk was located in the monitoring room; that he and other DEA agents were always accessible by phone, pager, or radio; and that at least six other DEA agents were working within 25 yards of the monitoring room. We agree with the district court that it is not necessary for a DEA person to be physically there while the ministerial act kind of work is being done, so long as he is available, and in touch, and can make the discretionary kind of decisions that he is called on to make. J.A. 367-68. We therefore deny the appellants' challenge to the wiretaps on this grounds.