Opinion ID: 318307
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: validity of the court orders

Text: 6 By a motion to suppress the appellants attacked the orders of the District Court authorizing the interception of their telephone communications. They contended that there was no probable cause for the issuance of the District Court's order and that the procedures in other ways failed to comply with the requirements of the statute. After pretrial hearings, lasting for twenty-one days, District Judge Robinson denied the motion. We think he was right. 7 The underpinning of the application for wiretap authorization was an affidavit of Special Agent John F. Cody of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, United States Department of Justice. The affidavit recited that Lawrence Jackson was well known to Bureau agents as a major violator of the narcotics laws, although he had no record of narcotics convictions. He had been the subject of a continuing investigation by the Bureau since 1966 but efforts to make a case against him had failed because of the 'tight security' under which he operated and which enabled him to identify the Bureau's undercover agents. He had no legitimate means of support but owned a 1969 Lincoln Continental sedan, dressed in expensive clothes and spent money lavishly. 8 An informer, referred to in the affidavit as SE-2-9-0011, but later identified as George Lewis, told Agent Cody that Jackson was one of the largest wholesale narcotics dealers in the Washington area. He volunteered his services in making a case against Jackson. 3 His reliability had been demonstrated when his information and services enabled the Bureau to make four cases against major violators in the Washington area. In these cases Lewis, in company with Bureau agents, made seven purchases of high-quality heroin. 9 On June 17, 1969 Lewis telephoned Jackson at 399-3695. Cody monitored the call with Lewis' permission. A woman who answered the telephone said that Jackson was at 'the 582 number' which she could not disclose without Jackson's permission. When Lewis called the woman back she told him that the number was 582-9265 and that if Jackson asked how he obtained the number to say she had given it to him. Lewis then called 582-9265 and was told by a man who answered that Jackson was not there but was at 396-9755. Reached at 396-9755, listed to a barbershop, Jackson offered to sell Lewis for $1500 an ounce of heroin that could 'stand nine cuts'. Lewis agreed to buy a half ounce for $750 and this transaction took place on June 19. The half ounce of heroin proved to be 88.5% Pure. Although a Bureau agent accompanied Lewis to the meeting with Jackson, and surveillance by other agents was attempted, 'Jackson made three check turns and one U-turn in an obvious effort to detect a surveillance' (Cody Affidavit P8) and then took Lewis alone to the point where the narcotics were secreted, approximately five blocks from the meeting point. 10 On June 23 Lewis telephoned 582-9265, Agent Cody again monitoring the call with Lewis' permission. A man who answered the telephone said Jackson was not there but he was usually there every day to receive telephone calls and generally arrived around 2:00 P.M. The following morning Lewis reached Jackson at the 399 number and arranged to purchase an ounce of heroin of the same purity as that purchased on June 19. Later that day, in the presence of Agent Wilder, Jackson sold Lewis 23.500 grams of 65.2% Pure heroin. The price was $1500. Although Agent Wilder was able to witness the sale, Jackson told Lewis that he would not sell any heroin to strangers and that Wilder should not be included in any future transactions. Agent Cody, who was in the vicinity of the transaction, observed several men believed to be associates of Jackson who were touring the area, apparently searching for surveillance teams. Directly after this transfer of heroin Jackson drove to 201-53rd Street, S.E. where the 582-9265 telephone was located. 11 The affidavit of Agent Cody recited further that by subpoena to the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company he learned that the telephone number 582-9265 was listed to Richard M. James at the 53rd Street, S.E. address. The records reflected that on January 27, 1969 three toll calls were made from this telephone to 512-- 723-4937; on January 30 there was one such call, one on February 8 and one on February 13. There were two calls to 512-- 723-4937 on February 14, five on February 18 and one on April 17. The telephone number 512-- 723-4937 was listed to Amelia Rendon, 201 Coke Street, Laredo, Texas. 12 Laredo, Texas was known to Cody as the main point on the Texas border for the smuggling of contraband and narcotics from Mexico to the United States. On June 26, 1969 Cody was informed by Special Agent Thormalen of the Bureau's San Antonio office that his office had received information to the effect that Rendon of Coke Street, Laredo, was a courier of narcotics from Mexico to Chicago and Washington, and that Rendon was associated with a well-known narcotics smuggler by the name of Marshallino Meriz. Meriz, according to Bureau files, was associated with one Francisco Flores, alias Poncho, a Mexican born in Laredo, who was operating a restaurant in Washington, D.C. Flores had been under investigation by the Bureau and was suspected of being a major smuggler of narcotics from Mexico to Washington. On October 30, 1966 a girl friend of Flores was arrested at Laredo, Texas, in possession of thirteen ounces of heroin. 13 Concluding his affidavit Agent Cody stated that extensive surveillance of Jackson was continuing but was not productive because of his extreme caution. In addition, he lived in a densely populated area and was closely associated with several of his neighbors who were prepared to alert him to danger. His local telephone calls were of course not noted on the subpoenaed records. 14 Cody submitted that probable cause existed to believe that Jackson had used and would continue to use the telephone listed as 582-9265 at 201-- 53rd Street, S.E., Apartment 2, Washington, D.C., in the commission of offenses involving the importation of narcotics and a conspiracy to do so. He requested an order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2518 authorizing the interception of wire communications over telephone 582-9265 for a period of thirty days. Finally, he submitted that no other investigative procedure reasonably appeared likely to succeed. 15 The appellants contend that (1) Agent Cody's affidavit did not contain allegations sufficient to constitute probable cause for the issuance of a wiretap order; (2) Cody did not exhaust normal investigative procedures before making the application; and (3) the affidavit was impeached and discredited by testimony taken at the hearing on the motion to suppress. At the conclusion of the hearings on the motion the district judge found that the affidavit had not been impeached or discredited and that its allegations constituted probable cause. The court found further that the interception of wire communications was the only investigative procedure likely to succeed.
16 The Cody affidavit must be read and interpreted in a commonsense and realistic fashion. If the apparent facts set out were such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe that Jackson was using the telephone No. 582-9265 in buying and selling narcotics and in conspiring to do so, that was enough. Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435, 45 S.Ct. 546, 69 L.Ed. 1032 (1925); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); United States v. Ventreasca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); Bell v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 254 F.2d 82, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 885, 79 S.Ct. 126, 3 L.Ed.2d 113, rehearing denied, 358 U.S. 923, 79 S.Ct. 292, 3 L.Ed.2d 242 (1958). We think the affidavit met this test. The reliable informant Lewis knew Jackson to be one of the largest narcotics wholesalers in the Washington area. On two occasions he purchased a substantial quantity of unusually pure heroin from Jackson. In the course of these dealings he learned that 582-9265 was apparently the secure headquarters number of the Jackson narcotics enterprise. This fact appeared from the following circumstances: (1) when on June 17 Lewis called Jackson for the first time at 399-3695 the answerer reported that Jackson was at the '582 number' but that number could be given out only with Jackson's permission; (2) when Lewis called the 582 number the answerer gave him the number of a barbershop where Jackson could be reached; (3) on June 23, when Lewis called the 582 number, he was told that Jackson was regularly there after 2:00 P.M. to receive calls. In addition, there were the many calls from the 582 number to Laredo, Texas, the main point on the Texas border for the smuggling of narcotics from Mexico into the United States.
17 As required by the statute, 18 U.S.C. 2518(3)(c), District Judge Jones determined on the basis of the allegations submitted to him that normal investigative procedures had been tried and had failed to penetrate the Jackson enterprise, or reasonably appeared to be unlikely to succeed if tried. This determination was sustained by Judge Robinson after hearing the motion to suppress. We agree. 18 We consider and apply section 2518(3)(c) in light of the discussion of that provision in S.Rep.No.1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 101, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1968, pp. 2112, 2190 (1968): 19 This requirement is patterned after traditional search warrant practice and present English procedure in the issuance of warrants to wiretap by the Home Secretary. The judgment would involve a consideration of all the facts and circumstances. Normal investigative procedure would include, for example, standard visual or aural surveillance techniques by law enforcement officers, general questioning or interrogation under an immunity grant, use of regular search warrants, and the infiltration of conspiratorial groups by undercover agents or informants. Merely because a normal investigative technique is theoretically possible, it does not follow that it is likely. What the provision envisions is that the showing be tested in a practical and commonsense fashion. 20 Considering the matter in a practical and commonsense fashion we find that although the informant had made two purchases of drugs from Jackson it was reasonable to believe that these transactions were only minor items in Jackson's enterprise, and that the exposure of his entire operation required different and more sophisticated techniques. Certainly it was clear that surveillance techniques and infiltration would be frustrated by Jackson's extreme caution. 21
22 At the hearing on the motion to suppress the appellants attempted to demonstrate various inaccuracies, discrepancies or omissions in the Cody affidavit, which, according to the appellants, destroyed its validity as a statement of probable cause. Thus it was claimed that the telephone listed to Amelia Rendon in Laredo, Texas, had been disconnected before the order authorizing the wiretap was signed, and that in any event the Amelia Rendon who was the subscriber was not the 'fat Amelia' who was a courier of narcotics. The appellants challenged Cody's statement that the current toll records at 582-9265 were not available. In summary, the appellants contended that Cody's investigation was cursory and that he relied upon hearsay. As we have indicated, Judge Robinson concluded that the averments of the affidavit had 'not been impeached or discredited (so) as to destroy probable cause for the issuance of the wiretap order . . ..' (Mot. Tr. 2641). 23 In our opinion the alleged inaccuracies or omissions in the Cody affidavit were not fatal to the showing of probable cause. In reaching this conclusion we assume without deciding that a court may examine the underlying evidence when an affidavit establishes probable cause on its face. See Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887 (1964); cf. Kenney v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 157 F.2d 442 (1946); United States v. Gianaris, 25 F.R.D. 194 (D.D.C.1960). But see United States v. Carmichael, 489 F.2d 983 (7th Cir. 1973).
24 The applications for authority to intercept wire communications, upon which Judge Jones acted, were filed by Assistant United States Attorney Harold Sullivan and represented that they were 'authorized by the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (Will Wilson), who has been specially designated by the Attorney General of the United States to exercise the powers conferred on him by Section 2516 of Title 18, United States Code.' 25 After their appeals were perfected the appellants filed motions in this court requesting a remand, to examine the manner in which officials of the Department of Justice authorized the wire interception applications. The motions were inspired by the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Robinson, 468 F.2d 189, decided Jan. 12, 1972; for subsequent developments in the case see 472 F.2d 973 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc), and 359 F.Supp. 52 (S.D.Fla.1973). In the Robinson case the court held invalid an interception application that was not approved by the Attorney General or by an Assistant Attorney General, but rather by executive assistants or deputies of these officials. The court held that this procedure failed to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2516(1) which provides in part: 26 The Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General, may authorize an application to a Federal judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with section 2518 of this chapter an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications . . .. 27 See also United States v. Mantello, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 2, 478 F.2d 671 (1973), petition for cert. filed, 42 U.S.L.W. 3022 (Apr. 30, 1973). 28 This court denied appellants' motions to remand, without prejudice to the submission of appropriate motions in the District Court pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. Motions for a new trial were thereafter filed in the District Court and, after hearing, were denied by the trial judge. 29 At the hearing on the motions for a new trial the evidence, by way of affidavits, disclosed that Attorney General John N. Mitchell sent to Assistant Attorney General Will Wilson a memorandum captioned 'SUBJECT: Interception Order Authorization' and referring to Mr. Wilson's 'recommendation that authorization be given . . . to make application for an interception order under 18 U.S.C. 2518, permitting the interception of wire communications to and from telephone number 582-9265 . . ..' The memorandum concluded 'you are hereby specially designated to authorize Harold Sullivan to make the above described application.' The Memorandum was initialed by Mr. Mitchell. Similar memoranda were sent with respect to the applications for an extension of the wiretap on 582-9265 and for authority to intercept communications on 399-3695. Mr. Mitchell's affidavit stated that his 'memoranda of approval . . . constituted notification to the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division that the discretionary action of approving each of the requests to make application to the court for an interception order had been taken by me.' The affidavit of Henry Petersen, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division, stated that having received the approval of the Attorney General, he signed Will Wilson's name to the letter informing Assistant United States Attorney Harold Sullivan that he was authorized to present the application to the court. Mr. Wilson did not examine any of the files but had authorized Mr. Petersen to sign his name to such a letter of authorization in every instance in which the request had been favorably acted upon in the Office of the Attorney General. 30 The District Court found that Attorney General Mitchell 'personally approved the requests for authority to apply for the interception orders in this case.' The court then 'considered the requirements of 18 United States Code, Section 2518(1)(a) that the application for an order to intercept wire or oral communications shall state the applicant's authority to make such application and the identity of the officer authorizing the application' and the court found that 'under the facts of this case' it was immaterial that Mr. Mitchell, and not Mr. Wilson, as alleged, was the authorizing officer. Accordingly the motions for a new trial were denied. 31 We agree with the district judge. He was plainly correct in his finding that the Attorney General personally approved the requests to make applications to the court for interception orders; and this personal authorization of the Attorney General complied with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2516(1). That the applications to the court erroneously stated that they were authorized by Mr. Wilson rather than by the Attorney General was an immaterial variance. Once the Attorney General personally approved the request, the actions of his subordinates were essentially ministerial; the letter purportedly signed by Mr. Wilson was 'but an act of transmittal without legal consequence to the authorization itself.' United States v. Askins, 351 F.Supp. 408, 412 (D.Md.1972); United States v. Cafero, 473 F.2d 489 (3d Cir. 1973), petition for cert. filed, 42 U.S.L.W. 3018 (Mar. 26, 1973); United States v. Becker, 461 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1972), petition for cert. filed, 42 U.S.L.W. 3061 (July 28, 1972); United States v. Pisacano, 459 F.2d 259 (2d Cir. 1972), petition for cert. filed, 42 U.S.L.W. 3016 (Apr. 8, 1972); United States v. Bobo, 477 F.2d 974 (4th Cir. 1973), petition for cert. filed sub nom. United States v. Gray, 42 U.S.L.W. 3167 (Aug. 2, 1973); United States v. Cox, 462 F.2d 1293 (8th Cir. 1972); United States v. Ceraso, 467 F.2d 647 (3d Cir. 1972); United States v. Mainello, 345 F.Supp. 863 (E.D.N.Y.1972). The record clearly fixed responsibility for the authorizations upon the Attorney General and thus fulfilled the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 2518(1)(a). 4 32