Opinion ID: 517661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the pen register

Text: 26 Grier filed a motion at 4:28 p.m. on Thursday, September 11, 1986, requesting the district court to compel the production of materials relevant to the operation of the pen register device used to identify the telephone numbers in the wire tap. As indicated previously, during the period between October 25, 1984, and October 29, 1984, the pen register malfunctioned and failed to record the telephone numbers of the outgoing telephone calls. When the trial commenced on Monday, September 15, the trial judge denied the motion to compel production, stating simply: Defendant Grier has moved to compel the Government to provide information regarding the pen register in this case, and that motion is denied. 10 Grier relied on Rule 16(a)(1)(C) and (D), Fed.R.Crim.P., 11 in moving to compel production of the following materials relevant to the operation of the pen register: 27 (1) The manufacturer, descriptive name and model number of each pen register or similar device used in the investigation of this case. 28 (2) Records of modifications, maintenance, calibration or testing done on each pen register or similar device used in the investigation of this case. 29 (3) Computer programs, other program documentation, user manuals and testing or debugging routines for all programs used to identify telephone numbers called during the investigation of this case. 30 (4) A description, including any written system manuals or other documentation, discussing the interplay between number dialed, identification procedures and conference call, call waiting, call forwarding and speed dialing procedures. 31 Grier contends the denial of his motion is reversible error because access to this information is provided under Rule 16, Fed.R.Crim.P., and any restriction of the discovery provided therein is a limitation of the defendant's right to confrontation of witnesses guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution. 12 Moreover, Grier argues that the government's reliance on any privilege not to disclose sensitive investigative techniques is misplaced when applied to pen registers because pen registers are not sensitive investigative techniques. Further Grier points out that he filed this motion only after informal attempts at discovery had failed and that the affidavit of his consulting expert attached to the motion stated that the information requested was necessary to identify technical weaknesses or areas of uncertainty concerning the accuracy of the pen register. 13 32 Grier's counsel was appointed on May 14, 1986, approximately four months before the trial commenced. Grier's counsel made a series of letter requests for information from the government, commencing with a letter dated July 28, 1986, wherein he made a request for certain information, including 33 [t]he manufacturer, descriptive name, and model number of each device used in the investigation of this case to intercept and record conversations or telephone calls or to identify the [sic] telephone lines to which or from which telephone calls were made, including but not limited to ... pen registers. 34 The July 28 letter also requested [r]ecords of modifications, maintenance, calibration or testing done on each device identified ... which was used in the investigation of this case. In a letter dated August 7, 1986, the government responded to these requests confirming that 35 the telephone numbers on incoming and outgoing calls from the Pipito telephone were identified by means of pen register, a trap and trace, and telephone toll records. 36