Opinion ID: 362836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Failure to Serve an Inventory.

Text: 10 Kekich contends that the Government's failure to serve upon him an inventory of his intercepted communications violated 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(d) (1976) 4 and required suppression of those conversations. 11 We are not persuaded that the Government violated section 2518(8)(d) here. The Government timely furnished to the district judges who authorized the wiretaps a list of persons participating in intercepted conversations. That list named Kekich as an interceptee, though not as a person to be charged for conducting the gambling operation. As Kekich was not a target of the investigation and was not named in the orders authorizing the wiretaps, he was among such other parties to intercepted communications as the judge (who authorized the wiretap) may determine in his discretion (to serve with an inventory of his intercepted conversations) in the interest of justice(.) 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(d). The authorizing judges here made no determination that justice required service of an inventory notice upon Kekich. 12 Further, assuming Arguendo a violation of section 2518(8)(d), Kekich's contention that his intercepted conversations should have been suppressed is foreclosed by United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413, 97 S.Ct. 658, 50 L.Ed.2d 652 (1977), in which the Court held that the Government's failure to fully comply with the service requirement of section 2518(8)(d) does not necessitate suppression of otherwise lawfully obtained wiretap evidence. 13 Affirmed.