Opinion ID: 413377
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standards for suppression

Text: 11 Appellant's contention is that the government failed to follow several statutory requirements for obtaining and using the electronic listening device. He argues that these failures to follow proper procedures necessitate suppression of all electronically obtained evidence since the communications were unlawfully intercepted within the meaning of both 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(10)(a)(i) (1976 & Supp. V 1981) 3 and 23 D.C.Code Sec. 551(b)(1) (1981). 4 To evaluate these arguments, we must first set forth the standards governing suppression. 5 12 The Supreme Court has made clear that not every failure to comply fully with any requirement provided in Title III would render the interception of wire or oral communications 'unlawful.'  United States v. Chavez, 416 U.S. 562, 574-575, 94 S.Ct. 1849, 1855-1856, 40 L.Ed.2d 380 (1974). The suppression remedy would be warranted only when the government fail[s] to satisfy any of those statutory requirements that directly and substantially implement the congressional intention to limit the use of intercept procedures to those situations clearly calling for the employment of this extraordinary investigative device. United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413, 433-434, 97 S.Ct. 658, 671, 50 L.Ed.2d 652 (1977) (quoting United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 527, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 1832, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974)). 13 This court has recently addressed itself to these Supreme Court opinions in United States v. Johnson, 696 F.2d 115 (D.C.Cir.1982). We held that in evaluating the need for suppression of electronically obtained evidence, we shall be guided by the principle implicit in the above opinions--that violations of even these central [statutory] requirements do not mandate suppression if the Government demonstrates to the court's satisfaction that the statutory purpose has been achieved despite the violation. 696 F.2d at 121 (footnote omitted). We will therefore focus on these considerations in evaluating appellant's claims that the conversations in the Royal Carpet were unlawfully intercepted and that all evidence derived therefrom must be suppressed.