Opinion ID: 1458127
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of Monitoring Procedures and Training

Text: It is apparent from the record that the DEA's monitoring procedures and its training of the monitors were adequate. The record reveals that all agents working on the case and all monitors were required to read Agent Schrock's affidavit, the court order for the wiretap, and the minimization memorandum written by AUSA Fruchterman. Moreover, AUSA Fruchterman personally instructed all agents and monitors present on the first day of the wiretap and he made efforts to speak by telephone with the monitors who began working after the first day. In addition, a DEA agent sat down with each new monitor, had him read the affidavit, the court order and the minimization memorandum, asked him whether he had any questions, and had him confirm by signature that he had read the instructions. The DEA agent conducting these training procedures was almost always Special Agent Gilliam, who was in charge of monitoring when he was in the wire room, and who, himself, had been instructed on the minimization provisions by AUSA Fruchterman and Agent Schrock, the lead agent in the case. As the district court observed in denying Defendants' minimization-related motions, the minimization memorandum instructed monitors: to immediately terminate interception of a call if no target subject or criminal associate was participating in the conversation; that a call could be intercepted for a reasonable time, usually not more than two minutes, to determine whether the conversation concerns criminal activities, and; what to do if it was unclear whether a conversation related to criminal activity. Monitors were also instructed that if they had questions they could ask the on-site agent or, if the on-site agent was unavailable, contact AUSA Fruchterman, another Assistant United States Attorney, or Agent Schrock. While monitors were not tested on their understanding of the documents they were required to read, all of them had worked on numerous wiretaps in the past and, as most calls were expected to be in Spanish, all monitors were Spanish speakers. In addition, the DEA tried to have an agent fluent in Spanish in the wire room at all times in order to review all calls intercepted by the monitors. Thus, Spanish-speaking agents would often listen to calls as they were coming in, would check whether the monitors were minimizing the calls at the appropriate times, and would compare call summaries being prepared by the monitors with what was being said in the call to which they were listening. While not all calls were reviewed by agents as the calls were coming in, an agent reviewed all call summaries later on. Further, more seasoned monitors would many times listen in on calls being monitored by less experienced monitors or would be present while such calls were being recorded. In addition, DEA agents ensured there was an overlap between shifts of monitors so that important information about earlier intercepted calls could be transferred to the monitors starting the new shift. While on occasion the only agent on duty may have left the wire room to go to the bathroom or get something to drink, the wire room was never without an agent for an extended period of time. The mobile telephone numbers of all the agents were written on a whiteboard in the wire room, the agents kept their mobile telephones on 24 hours a day, and the monitors were instructed to call if anything came up. The telephone numbers of government attorneys, including that of AUSA Fruchterman, were also written on the whiteboard. We have found similar minimization procedures to be adequate. In Torres, the DEA instructed monitors on the requirements and need for minimization and required them to read and sign a copy of the minimization guidelines. 908 F.2d at 1423. In addition, a DEA agent and Assistant United States Attorney made themselves available on a twenty-four hour basis for consultation. Id. We held that the DEA had adopted reasonable procedures to assure compliance with the minimization requirement. Id. Defendants argue, however, that the DEA failed to properly minimize the wiretap because it took insufficient steps to ensure that monitors would minimize conversations protected by the marital privilege. Specifically, they point out that the DEA did not make efforts to determine whether any of the wiretap targets were married and did not inform the monitors that Gilberto's wife lived in Mexico. We find Defendants' argument unpersuasive. The district court found, and the record confirms, that monitors were instructed not to listen to privileged calls, including calls between spouses. In addition, Special Agent Gilliam testified that the DEA was not aware, despite having reviewed various county and city databases, that any of the targets was married. While the DEA perhaps should have specifically investigated the marital status of the wiretap targets, Defendants cite no authority for the proposition that failure to do so renders the DEA's minimization procedures, as a whole, inadequate. Moreover, as Defendants point to no privileged conversations that they allege were improperly minimized, there is no indication that the monitors were insufficiently aware of how to minimize spousal communications. [4] Accordingly, we conclude that the DEA's monitoring procedures and its training of the monitors did not fall short of the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5).