Opinion ID: 547604
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: denial of motion to suppress electronically intercepted communications

Text: 11 At trial, Pratt moved to suppress the electronically intercepted conversations involving himself, Wheeler and Agent Rodriguez. It is uncontested that the conversations were recorded without a wiretap warrant and without appellant's knowledge or consent. Appellant sought to establish that the investigation was conducted primarily by state, rather than federal law enforcement officers, and hence that the Massachusetts wiretap statute, Mass.Gen.L. ch. 272, Sec. 99, rather than federal law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510 et seq. (1982), governed the admissibility of the evidence. See United States v. Jarabek, 726 F.2d 889, 900 n. 10 (1st Cir.1984) (dictum) (where state officers knowingly violate state law without federal involvement, state law may apply in federal prosecution); United States v. Daniel, 667 F.2d 783, 785 (9th Cir.1982) (discussing, but not deciding the issue). The Massachusetts statute prohibits use of electronically intercepted communications unless both parties consent to the interception, or unless one party consents and the eavesdropper is a law enforcement officer investigating organized crime. 4 The district court denied appellant's motion on the theory that federal law governed the admissibility of the evidence, and permitted introduction of the recordings. 12 On appeal, Pratt first argues that the district court found that the investigation was primarily a state operation, and therefore, that state law should have been applied. He contends that, since this is a factual finding, it is reviewable only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cruz Jimenez, 894 F.2d 1, 7-8 (1st Cir.1990). While we will not disagree with this statement of the standard of review associated with factual findings, we do find fault with appellant's statement of the fact itself. 13 Appellant's interpretation of the district court's statement supports his position only if one reads the statement out of the context in which it was made. The whole statement was, [t]he Court's impression, based on the record before it, is that this was primarily a state operation. Not only was this comment made before the trial began, but it was also made expressly conditional upon the facts before the court at that time. It is clear from the record that, at that point, the district court had heard no evidence regarding the referral of the case from the state CPAC Unit to the federal Task Force, or of the ensuing federal investigation. Thus, Pratt's emphasis of this single statement does not persuade this court that an error was made below. 14 Having thus concluded, we turn to the merits of the claim itself. On appeal, appellant argues that the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the recordings, on the grounds that United States v. Aiudi, 835 F.2d 943 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 978, 108 S.Ct. 1273, 99 L.Ed.2d 484 (1988), eliminated the need for such exclusion, constituted reversible error. In Aiudi, this court held that a search conducted by state police officers pursuant to an invalid warrant did not necessitate suppression of the evidence in federal court because a federal agent, who was at the scene at the time of the search, had authority to enter the premises without a warrant to do legally ... exactly what ... the (state) police did unlawfully. United States v. Aiudi, 835 F.2d at 946. 15 Appellant contends that United States v. Aiudi is distinguishable from the case at bar. He argues that the Aiudi rule applies only when a federal agency is conducting an investigation independent of that of state officers, and therefore has no incentive to encourage misconduct by state police. Pratt contends, however, that in this case, although federal officers were aware of the investigation, they were not participants. Thus, he concludes that this is a case where the federal government sat back and allowed illegally seized evidence to be handed them on a 'silver platter,'  id. at 946, thus mandating suppression of the evidence. Finally, appellant argues that Aiudi did not involve wiretap surveillance, and therefore has little applicability to the instant case. 16 After review of the record, we think it evident both that Aiudi was correctly utilized by the district court and that the investigation was primarily a federal affair. Aiudi, in applying Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960), stated that Elkins teaches that federal prosecutors cannot use evidence illegally procured by state officials when the 'evidence [was] obtained by state officers during a search which, if conducted by federal officers, would have violated the defendant's immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures.'  Aiudi, 835 F.2d at 946 (citing Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. at 223, 80 S.Ct. at 1447). Aiudi, therefore, applies to exclude evidence only where the evidence is state-seized, and where the federal officers lacked the authority to legally obtain what state officers took illegally. Aiudi, 835 F.2d at 946. 17 In this case, it is clear that federal officers did have the authority to record the conversation, and thus had no incentive to encourage unlawful conduct on the part of the state officers. While it is certainly true, as a general rule, that eavesdropping and wiretapping are permissible only with probable cause and a warrant, e.g., Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176, reh'g denied, Ivanov v. United States, 394 U.S. 939, 89 S.Ct. 1177, 22 L.Ed.2d 475 (1969), under federal law, consent of one party to a conversation is sufficient to permit a person acting under color of law to [lawfully] intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication ... 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2511(c) (West Supp.1990). See also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Although Massachusetts law goes further to protect the privacy rights of both parties to a conversation than does federal law, Mass.Gen.L. ch. 272, Sec. 99, it is well settled that, in federal prosecutions, evidence admissible under federal law cannot be excluded simply because it would be inadmissible under state law, and the district court was correct in so concluding. E.g., United States v. Mitro, 880 F.2d 1480, 1485 n. 7 (1st Cir.1989). 18 Moreover, in this case, the disputed evidence cannot be said to be state-seized, having been, at most, the product of a joint federal-state investigation. Consequently, as the district court properly held, Aiudi does not require suppression of the evidence. Although Wheeler's initial contact with law enforcement authorities was with state and local police, the case was immediately referred to the Western Massachusetts Narcotics Task Force. The Task Force was comprised of state and local law enforcement officers as well as federal agents, but it was headed by a federal DEA agent, and the agent assigned to investigate the instant case was a deputized federal agent. Moreover, Wheeler's first meeting with the Task Force took place at the Drug Enforcement Administration's offices in the Federal Building in Springfield, Massachusetts, and all but one of the persons at the meeting was a member of the Task Force. From the evidence before this court and the district court, it appears that, after the case was referred to the Task Force, it was investigated exclusively by Task Force personnel. 19 Even if the investigation could not entirely be considered a federal venture, under United States v. Jarabek, the admissibility of evidence obtained during a joint federal-state investigation for use in a federal criminal trial is governed by federal law. United States v. Jarabek, 726 F.2d at 900. See, e.g., United States v. Butera, 677 F.2d 1376, 1380 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1108, 103 S.Ct. 735, 74 L.Ed.2d 958 (1983); United States v. Neville, 516 F.2d 1302, 1309 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 925, 96 S.Ct. 269 46 L.Ed.2d 251 (1975). In Jarabek, this court held that the more restrictive provisions of the Massachusetts electronic interception statute did not apply to a joint federal-state investigation. See also United States v. Butera, 677 F.2d at 1380; United States v. Horton, 601 F.2d 319, 323 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 937, 100 S.Ct. 287, 62 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); United States v. Nelligan, 573 F.2d 251, 253 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Shaffer, 520 F.2d 1369, 1371-72 (3d Cir.1975) (per curiam), cert. denied, Vespe v. United States, 423 U.S. 1051, 96 S.Ct. 779, 46 L.Ed.2d 640 (1976). 20 Nor does the fact that Agent Rodriguez was a member of the Chicopee, Massachusetts Police Department, as well as being a member of the Task Force, render federal law inapplicable. United States v. Butera, 677 F.2d at 1380; United States v. Nelligan, 573 F.2d at 253. During the course of the investigation, Agent Rodriguez was clearly acting in his capacity as a deputized federal agent for the Task Force. See United States v. Gray, 626 F.2d 102, 105-06 (9th Cir.1980) (state officers working with the DEA were acting in a federal capacity at time of search, rendering federal law applicable). 21 Given the facts of this case, the district court did not err in concluding that the investigation was primarily conducted by federal officials, and thus that suppression of the recordings was not required by federal law.