Opinion ID: 2086425
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Canadian Investigation

Text: On January 6, 1992, when the parties appeared for trial, the People for the first time informed defendant of their intent to offer additional wiretap evidence obtained by Canadian authorities during the course of an entirely independent investigation. During investigation into an Ontario gambling ring that began October 24, 1989 and concluded on January 11, 1990, Canadian authorities recorded hundreds of conversations between their suspect in Ontario and defendant in New York. Under circumstances not disclosed to the court, New York authorities first learned of the Canadian investigation on December 18, 1990. In spring of 1991, a Canadian inspector met with authorities at the Bronx District Attorney's office and exchanged information with law enforcement agencies in New York. On January 18, 1991, the People had obtained a copy of the Canadian court's authorization for placement of the wiretap, but were informed that the accompanying affidavit was sealed and not available for inspection under Canadian law. A partially redacted copy was received nearly a year later, on January 13, 1992, and immediately turned over to defendant. Defendant moved pursuant to CPL article 710 to suppress evidence of the Canadian wiretaps on the grounds that, in violation of CPL 700.70, he had not received the wiretap warrants and supporting affidavits within 15 days of his arraignment. While acknowledging that he would not be entitled to such notice under Federal wiretapping laws, he argued that New York law was far more stringent, expansive and protective of the rights of its citizens in the area of eavesdropping. The People sought to establish good cause for late notice on the grounds that the wiretap affidavit had not been obtained from Canadian authorities until the very day of the hearing. Citing United States v Cotroni (527 F.2d 708), the court denied defendant's motion, reasoning that the objective of suppressing unlawfully seized evidence  to deter improper activity by law enforcement officers  is not furthered by suppressing, in a New York prosecution, evidence gathered in Canada. Absent a showing the evidence was obtained under circumstances that shocked the conscience or with the participation of United States law enforcement personnel, a defendant was not entitled to challenge admissibility of foreign wiretap evidence. Accordingly, the court determined defendant had received reasonable notice of the evidence, and was not entitled to strict compliance with the 15-day notice requirement of CPL 700.70. At the subsequent bench trial, Inspector Sandelli of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force testified that the master tape recording of the intercepted telephone conversations was kept in storage once the surveillance ended, but was not sealed. Defendant objected to admission of the tapes on the ground that, as a matter of statutory law, the procedures employed fell short of New York's sealing standard. No allegation was made that the procedures followed fell short of Canada's own legal standards. The court, after inquiry into the safeguards taken to preserve the integrity of the master tape, overruled defendant's objection. Defendant was convicted of numerous gambling-related offenses, and the Appellate Division affirmed. Before this Court, defendant asserts four claims: that the Canadian wiretap evidence should have been precluded because of the People's failure to provide timely notice under CPL 700.70; that preclusion of the Westchester wiretap evidence for lack of timely notice following the first indictment barred the People from seeking to use that evidence  and any evidence derived from it  upon prosecution of the second indictment; that the People failed to comply with the statutory sealing requirements following termination of the Westchester wiretap; and that defendant was deprived of his right to a speedy trial. We now reverse on the first and second grounds.