Opinion ID: 799956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Suppress the Aruban Wiretap Evidence

Text: We next consider the appellant's suppression claim. Immediately following the jury's verdict, Valdivia filed a motion for judgment of acquittal and/or a new trial, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 29, arguing in part that the Aruban wiretap violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and evidence derived therefrom should have been suppressed under the exclusionary rule. [12] We review de novo the district court's denial of Valdivia's Rule 29 motion. United States v. Troy, 583 F.3d 20, 24 (1st Cir.2009). Ordinarily, the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not apply to foreign searches and seizures, for the actions of an American court are unlikely to influence the conduct of foreign police. United States v. Hensel, 699 F.2d 18, 25 (1st Cir.1983). There are, however, two well-established exceptions to this rule: (1) where the conduct of foreign police shocks the judicial conscience, or (2) where American agents participated in the foreign search, or the foreign officers acted as agents for their American counterparts. United States v. Mitro, 880 F.2d 1480, 1482 (1st Cir.1989). Valdivia has not alleged, nor is there any indication, that the conduct of Aruban authorities in this instance might shock the judicial conscience; instead, Valdivia relies on the latter exceptioncommonly referred to as the joint venture doctrine claiming that the combined investigatory efforts of Aruban and American agents brings the challenged wiretap evidence within the exclusionary purview of the Fourth Amendment. We are not convinced. At its core, Valdivia's argument rests on three factual propositions: (1) that Special Agent Carpio, an American D.E.A. agent, was present in Aruba for significant portions of the wiretap investigation; (2) that Agent Carpio testified at trial concerning  our intercept investigation of the [trafficking] organization ... in Aruba; and (3) that the district court acknowledged, in its order denying Valdivia's Rule 29 motion, that there is no doubt that the United States participated in something called investigation by wiretapping in Aruba. Putting aside, for the moment, the questionable weight of these three propositions, we first recount the following panoply of countervailing facts, which are plainly evident from the record: Aruban authorities had already initiated the investigation of De Sousa prior to the arrival of any American law enforcement personnel; the wiretap was neither requested nor in any way organized or managed by agents of the United States; the wiretap orders were sought from and approved exclusively by Aruban courts; and only Aruban officers actively participated in the implementation of wiretaps and recording of conversationsindeed, American agents were permitted neither to enter the recording room nor listen to the recorded conversations while the investigation was ongoing. It was only after the investigation had concluded that Agent Carpio, through official government channels, requested an authorized copy of the recordings for purposes of domestic prosecution. While Carpio did, in fact, characterize the operation as  our intercept investigation, he later clarified that he did so to justify his presence in Aruba, which required authorization by his administrative superiors at the Drug Enforcement Agency. Moreover, although Carpio and other agents were present in Aruba during periods of the wiretap investigation, they were not active participants in the operation, did not carry guns, badges, or retain the authority to make arrests, and often worked on other unrelated cases. [13] Thus, as clearly evinced by the record, the involvement, if any, of American agents in the Aruban wiretap investigation was minimal, and certainly not sufficient to support an application of the joint venture exception. Sans the exclusionary hook of the Fourth Amendment, Valdivia's suppression claim is without merit. See, e.g., United States v. LaChapelle, 869 F.2d 488, 490-91 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that the joint venture exception did not apply where the foreign official who conducted the foreign investigation stated explicitly... that American agents were not involved in initiating or controlling the contested [foreign] wiretap).