Opinion ID: 413377
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Judicial sealing of the tapes

Text: 23 Appellant also argues that the evidence obtained from the listening device should be suppressed because the government did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay of four days in arranging for judicial sealing under the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(8)(a) (1976 & Supp. V 1981) and 23 D.C.Code Sec. 549(a) (1981). 12 We find this argument similarly unpersuasive. In United States v. Johnson, supra, 696 F.2d at 125, we held that in most cases, evidence from which the court can infer that the tapes were held in such a condition as to ensure that they could not be tampered with will be an important component of the Government's 'satisfactory explanation.'  24 Here, the record indicates that the government's explanation for the four-day delay is barely sufficient. The delay was attributed to: (1) the need to duplicate the tapes before sealing in order to provide a working copy for the prosecutor; and (2) the simultaneous, time-consuming efforts of the prosecutor and case agents to prepare another application for a wire intercept to replace the expired oral intercept at the Royal Carpet. Given the brevity of the delay, we are inclined to accept this explanation as sufficient. It should be clear, however, that any delay is not in keeping with the required strict adherence to the statute and that this court's toleration of such deficiencies has its limits.