Opinion ID: 164068
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sealing of Tapes

Text: 26 Cline next argues the government failed to timely seal the tapes of the calls intercepted on his home telephone. 4 The statute provides that [i]mmediately upon the expiration of the period of the order [authorizing the wiretap], or extensions thereof, such recordings shall be made available to the judge issuing such order and sealed under his directions. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(a). The statute further provides that [t]he presence of the seal provided for by this subsection, or a satisfactory explanation for the absence thereof, shall be a prerequisite for the use or disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom. Id. 27 The order authorizing the wiretap on Cline's residence was issued on February 24, 2000. Telephone calls were intercepted until March 23, 2000. On that same day, DEA agent Rob Ryan, who was the case agent and the wiretap administrator, contacted Assistant U.S. Attorney Allen Litchfield, who was supervising the Oklahoma wiretap. AUSA Litchfield, in turn, contacted the office of United States District Judge Holmes, who had authorized the wiretap on Cline's residence, and stated that the tapes were available. Agent Ryan was told that, because of the judge's schedule, Agent Ryan should appear before the judge on March 30, 2000. Agent Ryan and another AUSA did so, and, on March 30, the tapes were sealed by Judge Holmes. 5 28 Cline argues the one week delay is too long and the government has failed to adequately explain that delay, other than to assert that the judge was unavailable, and this court has never stated whether the issuing judge's unavailability is a satisfactory explanation for such a delay. 29 By its clear language, Section 2518(8)(a) requires, as a prerequisite to the admissibility of a recording, that one of two criteria be satisfied: either the recording must have been properly placed under seal, or the government must provide a `satisfactory explanation' for its failure to comply with the sealing requirement. United States v. Gomez, 67 F.3d 1515, 1523 (10th Cir.1995) (citing United States v. Ojeda Rios, 495 U.S. 257, 263, 110 S.Ct. 1845, 109 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990)). If the government fails to comply with the statute, the recording and all evidence derived therefrom must be suppressed. Id. Thus, we must consider whether the presentation of the recording for sealing was immediate within the meaning of § 2518(8)(a) and, if not, whether the government's explanation of its delay in presentation was satisfactory under the statute. We review those questions of statutory interpretation de novo. United States v. Maxwell, 25 F.3d 1389, 1394 (8th Cir.1994); United States v. Rodriguez, 786 F.2d 472, 476 (2nd Cir.1986). 30 The government argues the recordings were immediately made available to the judge who issued the wiretap order (Judge Holmes) in the sense that the AUSA immediately contacted the judge and offered to appear at the judge's convenience to present the recordings for sealing. Thus, the government argues, the fact that the recordings were in fact sealed, pursuant to the judge's directions, some seven days later is irrelevant. We do not need to decide whether the statute requires that the government only make the recordings immediately available for sealing, regardless of when they are in fact sealed, or whether it requires immediate actual sealing. Even if the government failed to comply with the sealing requirement, we find that the government's explanation for the seven-day delay before the tapes were sealed is reasonable. 31 As indicated, once the wiretap terminated, the government immediately contacted the issuing judge to present the recordings for sealing. The judge informed Agent Ryan and AUSA Litchfield that, due to the judge's scheduling problems, the next available time for the government to present the recordings would be in a week, and directed the AUSA to come back then. R. Vol. 9, doc. 748, attach. E. 6 While the government could have sought another judge to have the recordings sealed, there is no evidence of bad faith and no indication that the recordings were tampered with or that there was any tactical advantage gained by waiting the week to have Judge Holmes seal the tapes. Other courts have similarly accepted the issuing judge's scheduling problems as an acceptable excuse for a delay. See United States v. McGuire, 307 F.3d 1192, 1204 (9th Cir.2002) (As we have noted, `[t]he unavailability of the issuing or supervising judge may constitute a satisfactory explanation for a sealing delay.' (quoting United States v. Pedroni, 958 F.2d 262, 266 (9th Cir.1992))); Maxwell, 25 F.3d at 1394 (Intervening weekends, holidays, and the unavailability of the issuing judge are satisfactory explanations for slight delays in presenting wiretap recordings for sealing.); United States v. Ardito, 782 F.2d 358, 362-63 (2d Cir.1986) (two-day intervening holiday, unavailability of issuing judge, and need to prepare paperwork provided adequate explanation for five-day delay); United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 533 (2d Cir.1977) (holding that unavailability of issuing judge excused six-day delay in sealing of tapes). But see Rodriguez, 786 F.2d at 477-78 (holding that absence of issuing judge is no longer an acceptable excuse for failing to have recordings sealed); cf. United States v. Quintero, 38 F.3d 1317, 1330 (3d Cir.1994) (declining to decide whether the absence of the supervising judge, in and of itself, is sufficient excuse for any delay in sealing). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the government carried its burden of providing a satisfactory explanation for the seven-day delay before the recordings were sealed. 32