Opinion ID: 1213391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Government Properly and Timely Sealed the Wiretap Recordings.

Text: We reject Appellants' argument that there was undue delay in sealing the wiretap recordings for TT10 and other lines. Section 2518(8)(a) requires that [i]mmediately upon the expiration of the period of [a wiretap] order, or extensions thereof, such recordings shall be made available to the judge issuing such order and sealed under his directions. § 2518(8)(a). We have previously borrowed the interpretation of other circuits that immediately sealing recordings means within one or two days and any delay beyond that certainly calls for explanation. United States v. Pedroni, 958 F.2d 262, 265 (9th Cir.1992) (citations omitted). The length of a delay is not dispositive, but the Government must explain not only why a delay occurred but also why it is excusable. Id. at 265-66 (admitting recordings after 14 day delay and citing cases admitting recordings after delays of 20, 39, 57 and 118 days) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Further, [t]he unavailability of the issuing or supervising judge may constitute a satisfactory explanation for a sealing delay. Id. at 266. We review de novo the district court's determination that the Government's reasons for delay in sealing the wiretap recordings were satisfactory. Id. at 265 (citation omitted). In this case, Appellants cry foul over a six day delay in sealing the wiretap recordings for TT10. [7] The district court concluded that the Government had complied with § 2518(8)(a), because that section requires that immediately upon expiration of the wiretap order, the recordings shall be made available to the judge issuing such order. (emphasis added). The record shows that the Government made its applications to seal the recordings within one or two court days after the wiretaps terminated, and then sought the first available date provided by the district court for sealing. [8] Thus, the Government made the recordings immediately available to the district court. Although the actual sealing of the recordings was not always accomplished within two days, the record shows that any delay was the result of the district judge's unavailability due to a full calendar. We conclude that this explanation is satisfactory for the short delays involved in this case. See Pedroni, 958 F.2d at 265. Therefore, the district court correctly denied the motion to suppress on this basis.