Opinion ID: 362454
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: installation of the beeper

Text: 11 A panel of this court has held that the installation of a beeper on an automobile is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it defeats the expectation of privacy of the automobile's occupant; it is, therefore, prohibited unless a warrant is obtained or there is sufficient basis for the failure to obtain a warrant to render the act reasonable. United States v. Holmes, 5 Cir. 1975, 521 F.2d 859. En banc, the court again affirmed the district court on the issue, but only by an evenly divided vote, 5 Cir. 1976, 537 F.2d 227. For present purposes, we assume that the Holmes panel establishes the law of the circuit. 5 Compare United States v. Abel, 5 Cir. 1977, 548 F.2d 591, Cert. denied, 431 U.S. 956, 97 S.Ct. 2678, 53 L.Ed.2d 273; United States v. Emery, 1 Cir. 1977, 541 F.2d 887; United States v. Hufford, 9 Cir. 1976, 539 F.2d 32, Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1002, 97 S.Ct. 533, 50 L.Ed.2d 614; United States v. Frazier, 8 Cir. 1976, 538 F.2d 1322, Cert. denied, 1977, 429 U.S. 1046, 97 S.Ct. 751, 50 L.Ed.2d 759. 12 Nonetheless we note that here, unlike Holmes, there was no trespass 6 when the beeper was installed for Budal had the right to be on board the vessel; moreover, there was probable cause to believe that the NAHOA would be used to transport contraband. 7 However, validity of the installation of the electronic device does not rest only on these distinctions; the transmission of the signals was not, under the circumstances, an invasion of the privacy of others, for Budal was under no legal obligation to conceal his whereabouts. Thus the case is controlled by the decision in United States v. White, 1971, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453, in which a plurality of the court held that there is no privacy invasion when a confidential informant wears a recording device and surreptitiously transmits his own conversations with unknowing lawbreakers. That decision was based on the premise that a participant in a conversation has no legal right to protect his erroneous belief that those in whom he confides will safeguard the secrets he divulges. See also Lopez v. United States, 1963, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462. If the informant may reveal the conversation at a later time, he may contemporaneously transmit it to third persons. Accordingly, in Abel, supra, we upheld, on the basis of the owner's consent, the warrantless installation of an electronic device on an airplane. 13 Here, Budal was not the vessel owner, but he had a right to go aboard, and his placement of the devices on the vessel rather than on his person does not render its introduction invalid. 8 See also United States v. Cheshire, 5 Cir. 1978, 569 F.2d 887, Cert. denied, 437 U.S. 907, 98 S.Ct. 3097, 57 L.Ed.2d 1138 (consent by owner to installation on a plane he had rented to the defendant). 14 Appellants suggest that the beepers may have been installed without prior written authorization as required by the Internal Regulations of the DEA. Although the issue was fleetingly discussed during the trial court's hearing on the motion to suppress, there is no evidence in the record of noncompliance with the regulations. The regulations upon which the claim is based are not cited; in the absence of evidence establishing the existence of such a requirement and its breach, we do not reach the issue whether noncompliance, if shown, would require suppression of evidence obtained as a result of the improper installation. See United States v. Caceres, 9 Cir. 1976, 545 F.2d 1182, 1187, Cert. granted, 1978, 436 U.S. 943, 98 S.Ct. 2843, 56 L.Ed.2d 784; United States v. Leahey, 1 Cir. 1970, 434 F.2d 7, 11.