Document: 436 U.S. 128 98 S.Ct. 1717 56 L.Ed.2d 168 Frank R. SCOTT, etc. and Bernis L. Thurmon, etc., Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES. No. 76-6767. Argued March 1, 1978. Decided May 15, Rehearing Denied June 26, See 438 908, 3127. Syllabus Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Safe Streets Act 1968 requires that wiretapping or electronic surveillance "be conducted in such a way as to minimize" interception communications not otherwise subject under Title. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5) (1976 ed.). Pursuant court wiretap authorization order requiring minimization, Government agents intercepted for one-month period virtually all conversations over particular telephone suspected being used furtherance conspiracy import distribute narcotics. Forty percent calls were clearly narcotics related, remaining most part very short, wrong-number calls, persons unavailable come phone, ambiguous nature, few instances between person whom was registered her mother. After interceptions terminated, petitioners, among others, indicted various offenses. The District Court, on petitioners' pretrial motion, ordered suppression derivative evidence, ground had failed comply with order's minimization requirement, primarily because only 40% shown be related. Court Appeals reversed remanded, stating should have based its determination upon general comparison number narcotics-related total intercepted, but rather engaged particularized assessment reasonableness agents' attempts minimize light purpose information available at time interception. On remand, again suppression, relying largely fact aware requirement "but made no attempt therewith." reversed, holding yet apply correct standard, decision motion ultimately actual whether subjectively intended their interceptions, this case appropriate. Petitioners eventually convicted, affirmed. Held: 1. proper approach evaluating compliance like evaluation alleged violations Fourth Amendment, is objectively assess agent's officer's actions facts circumstances confronting him without regard his underlying intent motive. Pp. 135-138. 2. Even if fail make good-faith efforts itself violation statute since use word "conducted" makes it clear focus actions, motives, legislative history shows extend scope beyond search-and-seizure law Amendment. 138-139. 3. did err rejecting claim, properly analyzed wiretap. 139-143. (a) Blind reliance percentage nonpertinent sure guide answer. While percentages may provide assistance, there are cases, one, where relatively high still reasonable. P. 140. (b) It also important consider wiretap, more extensive justified widespread conspiracy, type which wiretapped normally put. (c) Other factors, exact point during authorized made, significant case. 141. (d) As here give an opportunity develop category innocent been hence cannot viewed requirement. registrant mother, said even though they turned out relevant investigation, incorrect concluding act unreasonably these interceptions. 142-143. 179 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 551 F.2d 467, John A. Shorter, Jr., Washington, D. C., petitioners. Richard Allen, Cambridge, Mass., respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 In 1968, Congress enacted deals other forms surveillance. §§ 2510-2520 Congress, after Court's decisions Berger v. New York, 388 41, 87 1873, 1040 (1967), Katz United States, 389 347, 88 507, 19 576 set enforcement officials some tools thought necessary combat crime unnecessarily infringing right individual privacy. generally S.Rep. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 2112. We occasion past, recent just last Term, exactly how effectuates balance.1 This us construe statutory chapter . ." 2 judicial required phone one month. Columbia suppressed evidence derived therefrom essence "admitted knowing purposeful failure by monitoring unreasonable every call narcotic-related." App. 39. Circuit first totality before any inquiry into subjective conducting 170 158, 516 751 (1975). granted certiorari question, 434 888, 261, 54 173 (1977), and, finding ourselves asic agreement Appeals, affirm. 3 * January 1970, applied, pursuant III, Geneva Jenkins.2 supporting affidavits probable cause believe nine individuals, named, participating area Jenkins' particularly petitioner who then living Jenkins. application 24, authorizing "[i]ntercept wire Alphonso H. Lee, Lee facilities hereinbefore described." 80. conduct "such [not] interception" Act3 report five days "the progress nature communication intercepted." Ibid. Interception began same day continued, judicially extension, until February making periodic reports judge required. Upon cessation search arrest warrants executed led 22 indictment 14. 4 Before trial defendants, including petitioners Scott moved suppress variety grounds. comprehensive discovery series hearings, held contained evidence. relied large while them This, reasoned, "strongly indicate[d] indiscriminate proscribed Katz4 Berger."5 331 F.Supp. 233, 247 (D.C.1971). 5 164 125, 129, 504 194, 198 (1974).6 6 37, 38.7 "The admitted Id., 7 standard. recognized "presence absence good faith undoubtedly factor considered assessing has satisfied," went hold must interceptions." 163, F.2d, 756. Then, extended elapsed commission offense examined appropriate could conclude "some conversation would reasonable made." 164, 757.8 8 remand from following nonjury stipulated consisted conversations, found guilty selling purchasing original stamped package, see 26 4704(a) (1964 ed.), Thurmon sell narcotics, 7237(b) 4705(a) ed.).9 affirmed convictions, 467 we certiorari. (1977). II 9 Petitioners' principal contention r quirement 2518(5). They urge efforts, presumably turns question those circumstances. Reply Brief Petitioner 4-5. Thus, argue Agent Cooper's testimony, basically concession resulted noninterception call, dispositive matter. so-called "call analysis," introduced suggest intercepting lead contrary conclusion because, having prepared attorney using terminology categories indicative thinking does reflect perceptions mental state actually 10 responds argument fails distinguish what establish constitutional support remedy once established.10 view deterrent purposes exclusionary rule, consideration official motives play determining rule established. But existence vel non objective time. Subjective alone, contends, lawful illegal unconstitutional.11 11 think Government's position, served basis embodies Although great length our prior opinions, almost exception Amendment undertaken known him. language proscribes "unreasonable" searches seizures. Terry Ohio, 392 21-22, 1868, 1880, 20 889 emphasized aspect term "reasonable." 12 "And justifying intrusion police officer able specific articulable which, taken together rational inferences facts, reasonably warrant intrusion. scheme becomes meaningful when assured charged enforcing laws can subjected detached, neutral scrutiny evaluate seizure And imperative judged against standard; moment 'warrant man caution belief' action appropriate?" (Footnotes omitted.) 13 Beck 379 89, 96-97, 85 223, 228, 142 (1964); Henry 361 98, 102-103, 80 168, 171, 134 (1959). 14 mind hypothecated reasons legal justification invalidate long circumstances, objectively, justify action. States Robinson, 414 218, 94 38 427 (1973), suspect searched incident arrest. He challenged motivation coincide search-incident-to-arrest exception. rejected argument: "Since custodial gives rise authority search, [the officer] indicate fear respondent he himself armed." 236, S.Ct., 477. Courts matter likewise followed principles, examining standard officers involved.12 15 do appear, however, rest entirely principles. Rather, effect regardless analysis regulating wiretaps suppression. 16 than reason. place, section directs "conducted," motives. Any lingering doubt dispelled another context, declares 2515 "generally press role present law." Sess., 96 2185. Alderman 394 165, 175-176, 89 961, 967, 968, 176 (1969).13 17 turn now Appeals' Because necessarily ad hoc reasonableness, inflexible will decide forbid nonrelevant instructs manner "minimize" conversations. Whether depend each agree blind Such surely bar, many. Many short. Others one-time calls. Still apparently involved guarded coded language. hardly expected know pertinent termination. minimized, For example, investigation focusing determine precise enterprise. possible many permissibly interceptible involve co-conspirators. put bearing extent permitted tap public placing bets substantial doubts arise listen goes places call. hand, located residence head major drug ring, indicated. factors made. During early stages forced intercept thereafter. types might later on, established type. situations patterns appear. short relevancy completed. 21 claim observations, find nothing persuade wrong rejection claim.14 related propriety is, course, dispute. company hear recorded weather message lasts less 90 seconds. this, involving wide-ranging participants, seasoned listener hard pressed precision completed.15 A characterization impossible completion Since thus left seven Jenkins four three-day beginning least two indicated mother conspiracy. next occurred about week later, both statements she something tell regarding "business" want so phone. final substantially longer statement interpreted i. e., "Reds," called ask number. none material say Its judgment accordingly 23 Affirmed. 24 BRENNAN, MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 25 departed longstanding national policy forbidding surreptitious communications,1 enactment That Act, personnel monitor private provided strict guidelines limitations barrier infringement One protections essential bulwark unconstitutional governmental "minimization requirement" today eviscerates congressionally mandated protection privacy, marking third disregarded diluted safeguards2 designed prevent becoming abhorred historically destroyed cherished expectation privacy home.3 provision" provides, inter alia, include "shall (Emphasis added.) findings fact, plainly shamelessly violated. found: 27 "[T]he listened [subject] telephone. showed avoid unnecessary intrusion." 36. 28 further special agent testified oath "he working knew 37. "knowing failure" requirements. These findings, re-examination, reiterated initial that: "[the agents] 'lip service compliance' provision mandate completely it." face monitored moreover, knowingly "in communications" interception, despite 60% holds occurred. post reconstruction offered assumptions attempted statute. Since, reality, assume dialed received likely connection criminal enterprise, violation, notwithstanding effort noninterceptable reasoning thrice flawed. 29 First, perhaps significant, totally disregards explicit congressional command Second, blinks reality accepting, substitute exercise familiar conjectures acted exercised judgment. difficult degree certainty given margin error permitted. enforce basic premise intrusions kept minim m excusing mandated. things fewer exercised, therefore unacceptable permit imposed duty excused difficulty predicting exercised. Finally, permits deliberately flout Congress. linguistic tour ide force converts mandatory conducted" precatory suggestion. Nor disregard statute's demonstration effectuate Congress' expressed history. contrary, faithful purpose, discovered 2518(10)(a) unambiguous enforced several Section emphasizes serve personnel. (1968). 30 obfuscation Part II, ante, 1722-1724, mandate4 transparent failure. None cases discussed deciding seizures discrete problems addresses construction answer problem, wording command, decision. offers explanation heed aphorism: "Though end words construing disputed statute, certainly begins there." Frankfurter, Some Reflections Reading Statutes, 47 Colum.L.Rev. 527, 535 (1947).5 31 Moreover, today's take sidelong glance Kahn, 415 143, 977, 39 225 (1974), whose undercuts, require overruling. Answering Kahn named surveillance, held: 32 "Title naming authorities 'committing offense' sought." 155, 984. 33 To would, effect, approve id., 158-163, 985-988 (Douglas, J., dissenting), adequate safeguard ch unlimited invasions personal privacy: 34 "[I]n accord execute specify Mrs. Kahn's executing free seize came wire—and indication abuses took place case." 154-155, 983-984. 35 Beyond inconsistency manifests disconcerting willingness unravel threads interdependence cumulative rend fabric III's "congressionally violates announced (1967)," Bynum 423 952, 357, 46 277 (1975) (BRENNAN, dissenting denial certiorari). process myopic, incremental denigration safeguards raises specter that, "enforced," vulnerable attack standards, defeating careful avert result. Donovan, 429 413, 97 658, 50 652 identify person, known, intercepted. subsequent identified subscriber Thornton, alias. 236 "not" inadvertently omitted, understood order. 245 n. (1967). rulings appeal. upheld contravened restriction seizures; determined sufficient cause; complied requirements sought review holdings. introduce participate demonstrate party seized conformity authorization." 2518(10)(a)(iii) U.S.App.D.C., 127-128, 196-197. testimony Special Glennon Cooper, charge steps nonreception connected improper line. laid stress exchange: "BY THE COURT: "Q. I wish you course wiretap—of intercept, listening? "A. Well, mentioned before, effective curtail reception instance line to—misconnected discontinued Do understand number? correct, Your Honor." 179. judges dissenting, denied rehearing en banc, 118, 522 1333 (1975), certiorari, 425 917, 1519, 768 (1976). MARSHALL, POWELL dissented statutes convicted repealed Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention 84 Stat. 1292. argues violated 2518(10) illegally See, e. g., Cox, 462 1293, 1301-1302 (C.A.8 1972), cert. denied, 417 918, 2623, 41 223 (1974); Sisca, 735, 746-747 (S.D.N.Y.1973), aff'd, 503 1337 (C.A.2), 419 1008, 95 328, 42 283 Mainello, 345 863, 874-877 (E.D.N.Y.1972); LaGorga, 336 190 (W.D.Pa.1971). renews standing raise challenge party. allow secure showing rights parties Government, contravene well-settled principles law, cf. Brown 411 230, 93 1565, 1569, 36 208 (1973); 197, (1969); Simmons 390 377, 1247 91, 106 (1968); supra, 967-968. Given disposition reach event decline address respect standing. concedes nonnarcotics-related arguments advanced herein. compelled undertake e issues. If, standing, simply repeat Thurmon's well. circumstance need questions Scott's California Bankers Assn. Shultz, 416 21, 44-45, 1494, 1509, 812 Doe Bolton, 410 179, 189, 739, 746, 201 (1973). adds record violate Constitution. contends stop reasonable, confronted situation. express Bugarin-Casas, 484 853, 854 (C.A. 1973), 1136, 881, 762 (1974) ("The intending stopped car render supported independent cause, invalid"); Dodd Beto, 435 868, 870 1970), 404 845, 92 145, 81 (1971); Klingler 409 299, 304 8), 396 859, 127, 110 Green 386 953, 956 1967); Sirimarco 315 699, 702 10), 374 807, 83 1696, 1032 (1963). usual custom, not, citing intend them. say, motive plays absolutely inquiry. occasion, conducts relevance applying rule. Janis, 428 433, 458, 3021, 3034, 49 1046 (1976), ruled unconstitutionally federal civil tax proceedings imposition unlikely much substantial, additional deterrence. falls outside offending zone primary interest." Ceccolini, 268 276-277, 1054 1060-1061, 55 (1978). intent, Constitution little practical judge's occasionally influence credibility officers' claims question. limited irrelevant issue "district errors factual inaccuracies represent interception." 25-26. fairly characterized however. 'call analysis' conflicts characterizations controlling 38. factually erroneous, sort employed agents. critical focused agents, read forth contains "factual inaccuracies." intimate narrower originally anticipated intercepts revealed local purchases within Washington area. true mainly distribution interstate international importation, garnered through reduced estimates people traffic. thought, extensive. Prior 605 Communications 1934, ch. 652, 48 1064, 1104, "no n t sender shall divulge publish existence, contents, substance, purport, meaning 445, 676, (1977) (MARSHALL, part); dissenting); Chavez, 562, 580, 1849, 1858, 40 380 dissenting). 160-162, nn. 3-4, 986, 987, (opinion Douglas, J.). refusal recognize violative bad result occur, "reasonableness" unimpaired Accord, U.S., 151, 982 ("[T]he starting point, construction, chosen enacting III").

Category: 0