Document: 429 U.S. 413 97 S.Ct. 658 50 L.Ed.2d 652 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Thomas W. DONOVAN et al. No. 75-212. Argued Oct. 13, 1976. Decided Jan. 18, 1977. Syllabus Title 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(b)(iv), which is part of III the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 1968, requires Government to include in its wiretap applications "the identity person, if known, committing offense whose communications are be intercepted." Section 2518(8) (d) judge whom a application made cause served on persons named order or an inventory, must give notice entry application, state disposition indicate whether were intercepted, further provides that may similar other parties intercepted he concludes such action interest justice. Evidence derived from wiretaps suppressed under 2518(10)(a)(i) communication was unlawfully On December 26, 1972, applied for extension authorizing interception gambling-related conversations certain individuals than respondents Donovan, Robbins, Buzzacco "others as yet unknown" four listed telephones, did not identify these even though it had previously learned they discussing illegal gambling activities with subjects. The District Court authorized 15-day interception. February 21, 1973, submitted court proposed giving 37 persons, signed order, inventory including Buzzacco. Subsequently, after names two additional identities allegedly been omitted inadvertently initial list, entered amended those individuals, but result "administrative oversight" Merlo Lauer included either list never notice. Respondents, along others, indicted federal offenses. respondents' motion, all evidence 26 intercept ground failure name them date violated inter alia, at both orders required by 2518(8)(d). Appeals affirmed. Held : 1. 2518(1)(b)(iv) satisfied when identifies only "principal target" (usually individual phone monitored) interception, who has probable believe engaged criminal activity investigation expects will over target telephone. Neither language structure nor legislative history supports interpretation Congress intended remove identification requirement suspects originated telephone application. Pp. 423-428. 2. Under 2518(8)(d), statutory responsibility inform issuing overheard course thus enabling him decide should Here comply adequately since purportedly complete identifiable judge. 428-432. 3. Although do so circumstances warrant suppression 2518(10)(a)(i), likely incriminating does play "substantive role" respect judicial authorization hence impose limitation use procedures. 435-437. (a) statutorily imposed preconditions (a determination normal investigative techniques have failed unlikely succeed, (i) activity, (ii) particular concerning obtained through (iii) facilities being used connection specified activity) satisfied, simply unaware might engaging conversations, lawful because provided sufficient information enable determine satisfied. 435-436. (b) There nothing suggest 2518(1)(b)(iv)'s broad "a central, functional, role guarding against unwarranted wiretapping electronic surveillance," United States v. Chavez, 416 562, 578, 94 1849, 1857, 40 380. P. 437. 4. Nor justified their comprehensive overheard. 438-439. "unlawfully intercepted" whenever receive discretionary 2518(8)(d) Government's identities. 438. Here, time completed "seized" valid fact reached 39 rather 41 itself mean intercepted. 6 Cir., 513 F.2d 337, reversed remanded. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Bernard A. Berkman, Cleveland, Ohio, Carmen Policy, Youngstown, respondents. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents issues construction §§ 2510-2520. Specifically, we intercepted," targets" intercept. Second, pursuant And finally, fully provisions 2518(10)(a). 2 * November 28, special agent Federal Bureau Investigation Northern Ohio accordance III.1 requested telephones one address North Olmstead, home Canton, Ohio. accompanying affidavit recited Albert Kotoch, Joseph Spaganlo, George Florea conduct business, conducting business would place calls various three also application.2 affiant stated informants refuse testify records alone insufficient support conviction, fruitful. Pursuant request, period 15 days wire Florea, respondents, "others, unknown," telephones.3 3 During wiretap, order.4 sought Robbins this second application.5 again maximum days. 4 interceptions group apparently thought could identified having discussed monitored telephones.6 Buzzacco, Robbins. September 11, individuals. As what labels oversight," notice.7 5 1, indictment returned charging five 10 conspiracy violation 371 1955. filed motions suppress After evidentiary hearing motions, 2518(4)(a). With Lauer, known until Sixth Circuit 337 (1975).8 issue, held every person relating subject Agreeing overhear Buzzaco "committing offense," affirmed order. question, implied duty can required.9 Because perform Court's suppressing orders. found unnecessary inadvertent purposeful, mere omission require 2518(10)(a).10 7 We granted certiorari resolve issues, concern major statute, 424 907, 96 1100, 47 310, now reverse. II 8 contends principal provide think neither contention sound. 9 turn first requirements 2518(1)(b)(iv). That provision specify In construing language, already ruled unless individual's Kahn, 415 143, 977, 225 (1974). question issue here individuals.11 argues most reasonable plain statute investigation, "will almost always monitored."12 Brief 18. interpretation, reason calls, qualifies hand, uses different investigation. words, depends operates calls.13 11 Whatever merits scheme, find little history. refers description applicable suspect placing It true, suggests, read context subdivisions 2518(1) (b), argument focused subdivision (iv) primary user But clear sections expected more individual. For example, upon application." (emphasis added). 2518(1)(e) disclose previous "involving any same . application" well anticipated given cover several telephone, reasons face suggests application.14 12 interpretation. combination S. 675, Wire Interception Act, introduced Senator McClellan months prior decision Berger New York, 388 41, 87 1873, 1040 (1967), 2050, Electronic Surveillance 1967, Hruska few decision. S.Rep.No.1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 66 (1968), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 2112. Both bills full statement facts relied applicant specification nature location involved. bill contained express here, "full involving committing, committed, about commit offense." Hearings Before Subcommittee Criminal Laws Procedures Senate Committee Judiciary Controlling Through More Effective Law Enforcement, 1st 77, 8(a)(3), 1006, 2518(4)(a) (1967) Thus, early stage, recognized there no indication limited targets. 13 917 combined 675 2050 eventually enacted. While pending before Committee, decided Katz States, 389 347, 88 507, 19 576 (1967). then redrafted conform Berger, added time. Report states set forth 2518(1)(b), "reflect constitutional command particularization." supra, 101, 2190, citing U.S., 58-60, S.Ct., 1883, 354-356, 512. although require, matter, surveillance hardly cases requiring naming overheard.15 25-26. extent meeting commands particularization established Katz, mandating requirement. confronted persons" 59, 1883. expressly noted "(did) constitutionally protected area invaded .." Ibid. Given our comment it, concluded Constitution naming, just user.16 14 event, present purposes speculate exactly how interpreted issue. note response decisions draws distinction based uses, points distinction. Indeed, materials contain term discussion treatment speaks.17 therefore conclude B (d), shall intercepted.18 mandates justice.19 Observing law enforcement authorities routinely supply specific exercise his discretion, inappropriate into option asking whatever requires. 16 Our reading light leads us reject reported order; amendment floor Senate. introducing amendment, Hart explained purpose: 17 "The issued discretion communications, specifically statute. communications. Since legitimate interests privacy make undesirable, leaves final judge." 114 Cong.Rec. 14485-14486 (1968).20 deciding justify withholding assistance beyond papers recordings available authorities. No purpose holding routine relevant information. Ninth recently problem dual responsibility, adopt balanced placed 2518(8)(d): "To discharge obligation officer have, minimum, knowledge categories fall while precise each party required, general class, classes, comprise essential necessary proper evaluation parties. Furthermore, filing (notice), abundantly prosecution greater access familiarity Therefore feel imposing latter classify transmit Should desire regarding classes (statutory) government (also) furnish it." Chun, 503 533, 540 (Footnote omitted.) 20 agree allocation best serves III.21 21 Currently, policy Department possibility indictment. 39. fails assure range judge, meet test out Chun. Moreover, where chooses fall, complete. Applying principles, 22 properly solely 2515 prohibits trial, proceedings, contents therefrom "if disclosure chapter." trigger enumerated 2518(10)(a): 23 "(i) intercepted; 24 "(ii) approval face; 25 "(iii) conformity approval." basis facially insufficient, conducted relevant: Were violations 2518(1)(b) 2518(8)(d)?22 Resolution begin Giordano, 505, 1820, 341 (1974), 380 Those hold "(not) render oral 'unlawful.' " Id., 574-575, 1856. To contrary, "failure satisfy directly substantially implement congressional intention limit procedures situations clearly calling employment extraordinary device." 527, 1832. 27 Giordano concerned approved Attorney General Assistant specially designated General. Concluding condition judgment senior officials Justice, provision. Chavez official misidentification; General, erroneously misidentification unlawful within meaning regulatory system. 1857. 28 instant case, played "central framework, evidence. undoubtedly important, renders respects satisfies requirements. 29 plays consequently imposes approve determines succeed that: activity; interception; activity. 2518(3)(a-d). statement" supplied If, evaluating factors invalidate otherwise authorization. present, targets way detracts sufficiency factors. 30 unlike bypassed congressionally procedure. "would inevitably foreclose resort personnel seek authority very authorize use." 528, however, conversations. meaningful sense said presence precluded intercept.23 Rather, resembles incorrectly informed performed task approval, satisfied.24 Finally, surveillance." predecessor 917, See 426. explanation inclusion reflect perceived particularization. offered guidance gleaned debates, substantive provision.25 31 reach conclusion earlier, version emerged mandatory "persons detailed provision: 32 "(T)he intent principle postuse retained. insure community reasonably employed. operation become least subject. He appropriate civil redress section 2520 feels invaded." 105 Admin.News, 2194. 33 adding merely indicates required. 34 Nothing At intercepted.26 35 postintercept designed instead technique recognizing considerable emphasis aspect overall serve independent restraint IV 36 intercept, presented 2518(10)(a)(i). correct III, reemphasize suggestion "strict adherence nonetheless keeping responsibilities engage sought." 580, 1858. reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 38 ordered. Chief BURGER, concurring judgment. I concur except Part II-A cannot agree, complied However, irrelevant foreclosed seeking event. Respondents contend that, exclusionary Their flies teeth contrary. evolution considered rejected conferred benefit seek. Senators Long addition fourth 14718 (1968). Had proposal adopted, allowed behest aggrieved she extension.1 proposal, said: 42 permit persons." (Emphasis supplied.) 43 Consistent Department's recommendation, 44 Even silent suppression, take analysis my view, facility. 45 drafted exacting precision. sponsor, McClellan, put it: 46 "(A) controversial close attention dotting 'i' crossing 't' ." 14751. circumstances, exact words surest guide determining Congress' intent, confine ourselves area. "identity (b)(iv). correctly indicates, carefully wake involved constitutionality York overheard." plainly call, York's, multiple person" obvious effected single potentially affect large number persons. Standing object "(a)ny addition, damages remedy Thus fashioning highly applications, employ parts written case. 48 emphasizes, recognizes Ante, 425. indeed true. 2518(1)(e), (8)(d). focusing establishing explicit contemplated name, "any open-ended intended. foresaw variety reasons, actual person. translate recognition contain. 49 Assuming bow, some compelling kind here. observes, earlier all. decided, abundance caution. flatly discounted value York's "It true 'the discussions recorded .' 'particularly describing' seized." 51 shown rejection obviously practical effect increasing multiplying indefinitely particularly Fourth Amendment values sweeping clear: 52 'The describe searched, things seized," seized.' 155 n. 15, 984 53 Hence, presently stands, comports entirely requirements, achieves 'reflect(ing) particularization.' 427. ill coequal branch Government, despite teaching Constitution, surmised "that (may have) user." own created confusion Congress, surprising, gained perpetuating Amendment. 54 short, passed identical valueless years ago undertaking, unfortunately, without consequence, notwithstanding refusal Among things, officers action, compensatory less $1,000, plus punitive damages, attorneys' fees.2 exclusive. State-provided remedies pre-empted. S.Rep.No. 1097, 90 107 (1968); 2196. Damages awards aside, albeit dictum hints offing intentional "violation" shown. district judges task, cases, exists 2518(3)(d). Judges wonder why burdens gain illusory 55 interpret says more. Wisely not, strictures, demonstrably knew chose, word try "improve" draftsmanship. 56 MARSHALL, BRENNAN joins, dissenting part. 57 today holds 2510-2520, investigated allow holdings. concludes, violates commands, nevertheless free proceeding. agree. 58 continue adhere position, expressed Members Douglas dissent 584-585, 1861, courts pick choose among provisions, 'substantive,' 'central,' 'directly substantially' related scheme." argument, see supra; renewing standard reaffirmed today, ante, 433-434, suppressed. 59 rejects doing so, relies section, context. 424-428. assumption portions target. Another 60 triggers provisions. First, 'involving application.' 425 61 Yet "directly implement(s) procedures," 1832, "regulatory system" ignores requirement's function "trigger." analysis, focuses warrant. once 2518(3)1 met, change Failure is, therefore, insignificant. 62 reasoning doubly flawed. prerequisites 2518(3) satisfied; so. Once still invasion circumstances.2 simple names. anyone A recent consider attempt circumvent restrictive rulings another unjustified privacy.3 certainly affected consideration.4 63 notes, 436 23,5 allegation system Congress. General's disregarded later ratified demonstrating originally. 523-524, 12, 1830. important consideration high-level role, mattered 64 disclose, vital know first. notification component design.6 65 majority surveillance. requirement, lead consequences parallels similarly recognize employed "Congress 439. occurs completed, "an procedure," notify "unlawful" 67 Again, takes too narrow view ignoring restrain wiretapping. involves direct restraints applying warrant, reduce providing sanctions misuse techniques. criminal, 2511(1), civil, 2520. meaningful. states: 68 "Injunctive relief, attendant discovery suits, any, grow inventories 2518(8)(d)." 69 id., 105. 70 central dismantles structure. 71 implies intentional, different. 23, 439 26. surely tolerate disregard duties assume establish offer assurance strictly 439-440, resulting failures intentional. hope admonition obey future. 72 poor substitute certainty effort fulfill III. obtain according scheme respectfully 73 STEVENS, 74 Parts MARSHALL's opinion, join procedure 2518(1), provides: "(1) Each approving writing oath affirmation competent jurisdiction applicant's following information: "(a) making application; "(b) applicant, belief issued, details been, being, type "(c) tried appear dangerous; "(d) maintained. If automatically terminate described obtained, occur thereafter; "(e) of, places taken "(f) setting results far results." 2518(2). extensive indicating operation. physical agents FBI, examination company toll records, personal observations six informants, past reliability affidavit. 2518(3), (4), pertinent part: "(3) Upon enter ex parte modified, territorial sitting, 2516 chapter; which, where, used, commission offense, leased to, commonly "(4) granted; relates; agency during authorized, obtained." requesting separate monitor third discovered Olmstead address. accompanied monitoring, manner discovered, newly continued necessary. copy attached applications. sake clarity, treated conceded Donovan "known" challenged erroneous finding respondent upheld finding, review disposition. purposes, An (d). authorizes "other communications" orders, defendants, 1973. introduction trial prohibited 2518(9). appeal 3731, charges 6, supra. 2518(10)(a) "(10)(a) Any hearing, proceeding court, department, officer, agency, body, State, political thereof, move communication, therefrom, grounds Every probably sought. Chiarizio, 525 289, 292 (C.A.2 1975); Bernstein, 509 996 (C.A.4 1975), cert. pending, 74-1486; Doolittle, 507 1368 (CA5), aff'd en banc, 518 500 (1975), Nos. 75-500, 75-509, 75-513; Civella, 533 1395 (C.A.8 1976), 75-1813, 76-169; Russo, 527 1051, 1056 (C.A.10 denied, 426 906, 2226, 831 (1976). Moore, 168 U.S.App.D.C. 227, 235-236, 485, 493-494 (1975) (interpreting D.C.Code 23-547(a)(2)(D), here). concluded, argue, resolved Kahn suggesting Kahn. complicity relevant, controlling, precedent. regardless factual concedes using "equally" "all named." 13. Counsel position succinctly argument: critical (one) between users throughout world converse unmonitored phones hand." Tr. Oral Arg. contrary suggested information, operated end line. limiting speaks. enactment 984. context, line tapped seized. named. Specification sort "identif(ies) understood portion dealing "specify identity, cites West Cabell, 153 78, 752, L.Ed. 643 (1894), concerns need arrest 102 apply applicability extend parallel York: "Specificity 14763 (1968) (remarks Sen. Percy). filed. showing good cause, service postponed. notice, sealed directions. 2518(8)(a). These return 355-356, 513, (1967); 60, 1884. worth noting shortly report prepared Association Bar City legislation. commented harmful gave example: "A, businessman, talks customers, bugged (T)he damage confidence A's reputation unjustly. seem customers inventory." 14476 counsel merit approach Chun: "Perhaps Circuit, submitting submit overheard, better policy, helpful exercising objection useful area." 6-7. availability statutory, opposed constitutional, violations, nn. 19, turns judicially fashioned rule aimed deterring rights. 524, 1831, THE CHIEF JUSTICE lack standing suppression. Post, 440-441. rests justifying namely, introduce entitled alternative wiretap. chose add prevent covered grounds. commented, cited opinion: (Long Hart) scope surveillance, accomplishes artificial manner. So long validly admissible order." challenge validity thereon unavailable enacted knowingly prompted lacking. made, denied inventory. "unknown" Though opposite difference analogy warrantless searches arrests. 40. often unable foresee them, search applies flaw action. authorization, overhead absence bearing lawfulness mandated, follow sanction noncompliance. discriminate circumstances," 2191, convince existed telephones. declare 32, called serving opportunity suggestion, 40, served. prejudiced defendants papers. 7, pretrial produced transcripts provided: "(iv) thereof." speak instances, arguably not. unnamed passed. necessarily officers' "violation," reliance defense provides, "Upon person." 2518(1)(d)-(f) superfluous depended findings 2518(3). Cf. Bellosi, 163 273, 501 833 Chavez. There, actually judge's 572, 1854. kept lacking." shown, formulation understates role. II, infra.

Category: 0