Opinion ID: 520595
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: hobbs act extortion and collection of credit by extortionate means

Text: 12 Beginning in September, 1985, Local 30B contractors (also called principals) were summoned to the offices of the Roofers Union. The purpose of the meetings was to institute a new policy and to request principals to pay fines for noncompliance with union rules. The new policy required principals to report at least 100 hours of work per month (the 100 hour plan), thereby mandating a minimum union payment of $60, in contrast to the previous policy which did not contain a minimum reporting requirement. In addition, non-union contractors were summoned to the union offices to induce them to become union-contractors. 13 The meetings with the contractors were shown to be confrontational and intimidating in that the principals were often threatened and physically abused by union officials--typically the union business agents who were ex-amateur or ex-professional boxers.III. DISCUSSION A. COMMON ARGUMENTS 14
15 The October 24, 1985 order (the Order), authorizing electronic surveillance of the Business Manager's Office and the Business Agents Meeting Room of the Roofers Union, was the second of five interception orders signed by the district judge then having responsibility for such matters. On appeal, there is no argument regarding the validity of the other four surveillance orders. The Order, however, was missing page three when it was signed by the district judge. Appellants claim that it was error for the district court to refuse to suppress the fruits of the electronic surveillance during the period when the Order was in effect. 16 The discrete question presented on appeal is whether the absence of page three and the information that would have been contained therein, renders the Order facially insufficient and therefore invalid under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(10)(a)(ii) 1 . Appellants contend that the Order was deficient in that the requirements of Sec. 2518(3)(c) and (d) as well as Sec. 2518(4)(d) were not satisfied requiring the suppression of the fruits of the Order. We will examine the merits of each of these contentions in turn. 17
18 Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(5) [e]xtensions of an order may be granted, but only upon ... the court making the findings required by subsection (3) of this section. Subsection (3) of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518 provides in pertinent part: 19 Upon application the judge may enter an ex parte order ... if the judge determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that-- 20