Opinion ID: 514214
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of the Funeral Photos

Text: 39 In support of the allegation that Montemarano was a member of the Colombo family, the government offered, inter alia, surveillance photographs that showed him outside a church before and after a funeral, mingling with other members of organized crime. Montemarano objected to the introduction of this evidence on the ground that it infringed his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 6, 1987, the district court overruled the objection, noting that the photos did not depict the celebration of any religious practice but only the mingling of persons in public view before or after services; it concluded that the remote, indirect effect of the government's covert surveillance of the exterior of the church was clearly outweighed by the compelling interest of society in the effective enforcement of its penal laws. We agree. 40 Recognizing that an individual aware of government surveillance at his place of worship could feel a chilling effect on his exercise of religion, we think it appropriate to analyze Montemarano's contention within the three-part framework set forth in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 700, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2666, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972). Under that analysis, in order to justify intrusion into an individual's first amendment rights, the government must show that its actions (1) pursue a compelling state interest, id., (2)  'bear[ ] a reasonable relationship to the achievement of the governmental purpose,'  id. (quoting Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 525, 80 S.Ct. 412, 417-18, 4 L.Ed.2d 480 (1960)), and (3) are not an unduly broad means [that] unnecessar[ily] impact on protected rights, Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. at 680-81, 92 S.Ct. at 2652. We conclude that the government has carried its burden. 41 Investigation of suspected criminals is a fundamental and compelling interest. Investigations with respect to certain types of suspected criminal activity, such as conspiracy or RICO violations, must focus on interactions between two or more persons. Such interactions are likely to be covert, and the opportunities to document them, especially between or among organized crime figures, are rare. Use of ordinary surveillance techniques in public places bears a reasonable relationship to the governmental goal. We see no error in the district court's finding that the surveillance conducted here was no more intrusive than was necessary in order to record the interactions. The photos were not taken inside the church and did not record any religious ceremony; rather, they were taken before and after the ceremonies. In addition, they were taken covertly, thus avoiding any potentially menacing effect that might be felt from a perceptible government presence. 42 We conclude that the Branzburg test was met and that the district court did not err in rejecting Montemarano's First Amendment argument.