Opinion ID: 777634
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cellular Telephone Wiretap

Text: 11 Between May and August 1994, the district court issued four successive 30-day orders authorizing the interception of Flowers' cellular telephone communications. The first two orders authorized the interception of communications to and from cellular telephone number (415) 407-8340 (the 8340 wiretap), the number Flowers was using at the time. After Flowers ceased using the 8340 number, the government obtained two additional, successive orders authorizing interception of the new number Flowers was using, (510) 414-2285 (the 2285 wiretap). While the last order was still in effect, the government ceased surveillance and, on September 2, 1994, presented all tape recordings of the 8340 and the 2285 wiretaps to the district court for sealing. The question presented is whether the sealing of the recordings of the 8340 wiretap was timely.
12 Section 2518(8)(a) requires sealing [i]mmediately upon the expiration of the period of the order, or extensions thereof  (emphasis added). Our analysis turns on whether the 8340 wiretap was extended by the later orders authorizing interception of the 2285 number. Relying on out-of-circuit law, appellants argue that an order authorizing interception of one phone number is not extended by an order authorizing interception of a different number. The government says all of the orders in this case should be viewed as extensions of the first order and, therefore, that sealing of the 8340 recordings was not required until the last order expired. In the alternative, the government argues that even if we adopt the rule of the other circuits holding otherwise, those cases are distinguishable because they involved traditional land lines rather than cellular phones. Differences in cellular technology, the government says, should compel a broader view of extensions here. We agree with appellants. 13 The Second and Third Circuits have held that a wiretap order authorizing interception at one location or of one phone number is not extended by an order, even if it is part of the same investigation of the same crimes and the same person, authorizing interception at a different location or of a different phone number. See United States v. Ojeda Rios, 875 F.2d 17, 21 (2d Cir.1989), vacated and remanded on other grounds by 495 U.S. 257, 110 S.Ct. 1845, 109 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990) (holding that the term extensions is to be understood in a common sense fashion as encompassing all consecutive continuations of a wiretap order, however designated, where the surveillance involves the same telephone, the same premises, the same crimes, and substantially the same persons) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Vastola, 915 F.2d 865, 874 (3d Cir.1990) (holding that a change in the location of an illegal operation will prevent a subsequent order covering the new location from being an extension of a previous order). 14 These cases rely on the structure of Title III, which ties wiretap authority to specific communications facilities or locations. 3 For instance, the government's application for authority to intercept communications must include a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(b)(ii). Similarly, before authorizing interception, the judge must assure that there is probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, oral, or electronic communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of [the] offense. Id. § 2518(3)(d). We agree with the Second and Third Circuits and hold that an order is an extension of an earlier order only if it authorizes continued interception of the same location or communications facility specified by the prior order. 15 The government relies on United States v. Principie, 531 F.2d 1132 (2d Cir.1976), for a contrary interpretation. In Principie, the Second Circuit held that an order authorizing surveillance at one location was extended by a subsequent order involving a different location, stating: [t]he [latter] order was clearly part of the same investigation of the same individuals conducting the same criminal enterprise as the [earlier] order and in these circumstances must be regarded as an `extension' of the earlier order within the meaning of the statute. Id. at 1142 n. 14. We find the government's argument unpersuasive. First, the Principie decision involved § 2518(8)(d) — a provision requiring the government to notify the targets of a wiretap within 90 days after termination or extensions of a wiretap order — not § 2518(8)(a). Second, the Second Circuit's reasoning in Principie was based on practical considerations not present here. Providing notification to the target of surveillance would frustrate the evident intention of the statute to defer notice to the end of the investigation. 531 F.2d at 1142. The sealing requirement contains no such notification requirement. We see no basis to conclude that sealing amid an ongoing investigation would hamper continued surveillance. Sealing is an ex parte proceeding. Moreover, § 2518(8)(a) separately authorizes the government to produce duplicate recordings for investigatory purposes when the originals are sealed. In short, the policy considerations that animated Principie have no application here. Finally, we note that the Second Circuit declined to extend Principie's broad interpretation of extensions to § 2518(8)(a) in its later Ojeda Rios decision. 875 F.2d at 22. 16 The government also contends the Ojeda Rios/Vastola analysis should not apply here because cellular telephone technology inherently differs from traditional land lines in two respects: (1) a traditional land-line telephone is wired into the premises and cannot easily be moved and (2) a land-line wiretap necessarily is intertwined with the premises itself, as well as with the persons using the telephone. Identification of these distinctions alone, however, does not establish a basis for treating cellular telephones differently. 17 Indeed, applying Ojeda Rios and Vastola to cellular facilities is consistent with the plain language of § 2518(1)(b)(ii) and (3)(d). We think that the word extensions, as it is used in subsection (8)(a), should have a single meaning rather than alternative definitions based on the type of communications or facility for which surveillance is authorized. By pointing out that cellular telephones may be moved easily, the government perhaps seeks to establish that applying Ojeda Rios and Vastola to cellular phones would imposed administrative burdens on the government that would frustrate surveillance in a manner that Congress could not have intended. This argument, however, is not borne out. There is indeed a burden imposed on the government when a wiretap based on a specific cell phone number is no longer effective. The government must solicit the court for new authority to intercept the new phone number. This burden, however, is imposed by the Title III authorization requirements and exists independent of anything we have to say about the sealing requirement codified in § 2518(8)(a). The government has not explained why it would be burdensome to seal existing records contemporaneous with obtaining authority to wiretap a new facility or location. 18 Our conclusion that the same meaning of extension should apply to cellular phones is supported by the overall structure of Title III. In 1986, Congress amended Title III to permit roving wiretaps. See 18 U.S.C. § 2518(11). Under that provision, the government may obtain authority to intercept communications to and from any cellular phone number used by the target of an investigation. Before obtaining such authority, the government must establish that the target would thwart detection from a specified facility or location. When the government makes such a showing, it need not specify a particular communications facility or location at which the surveillance will take place and § 2518(1)(b)(ii) and (3)(d) do not apply. By enacting that provision, Congress contemplate[d] the roving surveillance of suspects who move from room to room in a hotel or of alleged terrorists who use different telephone booths to avoid surveillance. Ojeda Rios, 875 F.2d at 22. Roving wiretaps are an appropriate tool to investigate individuals, such as Flowers, who use cloned cellular phone numbers and change numbers frequently to avoid detection. The roving wiretap provides the government with ample latitude to cope with the unique characteristics of cellular technology. 4 19 Applying the Ojeda Rios/Vastola rule here, we hold that the later orders were not extensions within the meaning of § 2518(8)(a). The recordings of the 8340 wiretap were sealed 39 days after the last authority to intercept that number expired. Under the law of this Circuit, a delay of that length does not constitute immediate sealing. See United States v. Pedroni, 958 F.2d 262, 265 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that a 14-day delay in sealing tapes was not immediate); see also Vastola, 915 F.2d at 875 (holding that tapes should be sealed either as soon as was practical after the actual surveillance ended or as soon as practical after the final extension order expires).
20 A failure to comply with the sealing requirement, however, does not render the recordings inadmissible if the government offers a satisfactory explanation for the absence of timely sealing. To satisfactorily explain a delay, the government must prove that its actual reason for delay was based on an objectively reasonable interpretation of the law. Ojeda Rios, 495 U.S. at 266-67, 110 S.Ct. 1845; United States v. Vastola, 989 F.2d 1318, 1323 (3d Cir.1993). 21 The government has explained that it delayed sealing the 8340 recordings because it believed the orders authorizing surveillance of that number were extended by the later orders. As evidence that it so believed, the government points out that it referred to the later orders as extensions in the periodic progress reports it filed with the district court during the ongoing surveillance. The government also points out that the district court agreed with the government's view that the later orders were extensions, both during and after the surveillance. Based on this evidence, we conclude that the government's mistaken belief that it could delay sealing the 8340 recordings because the later orders were extensions was its actual reason for delay. 22 We also conclude that the government's explanation was objectively reasonable. Before today, the meaning of the term extensions was an open question in this Circuit. Only two circuits previously had addressed that question. Moreover, Principie, although distinguishable, has not been expressly overruled and it supported the government's theory that extensions have a broader meaning than the one we settle on today. Finally, the government reasonably could have believed that inherent differences between cellular and conventional telephones could have warranted a departure from Ojeda Rios and Vastola in this case. We therefore affirm the district court's denial of appellants' motion to suppress the 8340 recordings.