Document: 416 U.S. 505 94 S.Ct. 1820 40 L.Ed.2d 341 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Dominic Nicholas GIORDANO et al. No. 72—1057. Argued Jan. 8, 1974. Decided May 13, Syllabus Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 1968 provides in 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1) that 'the Attorney General, or any Assistant General specially designated by may authorize an application to a Federal judge . for order authorizing approving interception wire oral communications' federal investigative agencies seeking evidence certain offenses; further contents intercepted communications, derived therefrom, not be received at trial if disclosure information would violate III, 2515, suppressed on ground, inter alia, communication was 'unlawfully intercepted,' 2518(10)(a)(i). In this case purportedly authorized permitting wiretap telephone respondent Giordano, narcotics offense suspect, submitted Chief Judge District Court, who then issued order, later extension based similar but also including obtained from previously extending authority conversations additional named individuals calling Giordano's telephone. The terminated when Giordano other respondents were arrested charged with violations. During suppression hearings, it developed applications had fact been initial General's Executive approved himself. Court sustained motions suppress ground Justice Department officer each misidentified intercept orders. Appeals affirmed, authorization violated 2516(1), thereby requiring derivative under §§ 2515 2518(10) (a)(i), alia. Held: 1. Congress did intend power exercised than him. Pp. 512—523. (a) Notwithstanding 28 510, which authorizes delegate his functions officer, employee, agency Department, fairly read, intended limit himself he might designate. 512—514. (b) This interpretation is strongly supported purpose effectively prohibit all interceptions except those specifically provided for, its legislative history. 514—523. 2. Primary secured pursuant court response was, fact, must upon motion properly made 2518(10)(a), hence suppressed. 524—529. Under 2518(10)(a)(i) words intercepted' are limited constitutional violations, statute require where there failure satisfy statutory requirements directly substantially implement congressional intention use procedures situations clearly employment extraordinary device. 524—528. Since condition judgment senior official situation one warranting their use, thus precluding resort wiretapping various personnel otherwise seek very likely evident provision pre-application approval play central role scheme follow shown requirement has ignored. 528—529. 3. Communications inadmissible, since they communications invalidly order. 529—533. 4 Cir., 469 F.2d 522, affirmed. Sol. Gen. Robert H. Bork, petitioner. Russell Smouse, Bltimore, Md., respondents. Mr. WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 1968, 82 Stat. 211—225, 2510—2520, prescribes procedure securing judicial investigation specified serious offenses. here determine whether Government sufficiently complied required whether, not, as result such surveillance, applications, admissible criminal whose overheard. particular, we decide s 2516(1)1 conferring 'Attorney General' 'authorize offenses permits validly made. We conclude him primary statutorily officials 2518(10)(a). Accordingly, affirm Appeals. 2 * course suspected dealings part sold undercover agent October 5, 1970, told informant call number interested transacting business. Based information, Francis Brocato, United States Attorney, 16, Maryland others yet unknown, recited Will Wilson application. Attached letter Brocato stated reviewed Brocato's request necessary probable-cause determinations purported proceed court. Also attached affidavits law enforcement officers stating reasons justification proposed interception. Upon reviewing application, same day 'pursuant Wilson, proceeding exercise powers conferred (18 2516).' On November 6, extended form original, already carried out violations laws. 3 Suppression hearings followed pretrial notification Government, see 2518(9), results court-authorized It presented inaccurately described neither 16 nor 6 indicated. An affidavit divulged he, Assistant, apply concluded, 'knowledge actions previous cases, approve him,' and, because trip away Washington, D.C., do so circumstances, caused initials placed memorandum instructing proceed. initialed designating make revealed although action best only formal Brocato. Furthermore, became apparent sign either letters bearing name accompanying Instead, appeared someone Wilson's office affixed signature after signing Deputy Criminal Division had, turn, acted occurred Office General. orders, violation 2518(1)(a) (a)(d), v. Focarile, 340 F.Supp. 1033, 1060 (D.C.Md.1972). Government's appeal 3731, affirmed different struck heart' 2518(10)(a)(1) (ii).2 531 (CA4 1972). granted certiorari resolve conflict decisions Second Circuit3 respect administration circumscribed officers. 411 U.S., 905, 93 S.Ct., 1530, 36 194. II 5 contends inconsistent even were, being no violation, should have ordered disagree both contentions.4 Turning first begin language '(t)he authorize' authority. Plainly enough, General; argues 509,5 deriving Reorganization Acts 1949 1950, vests Justice, some exceptions, characteristically assigns newly created duties rather making essential delegation appearing 510: 7 'The time provisions considers appropriate performance function General.' 8 therefore argued merely vesting duty said evinces whatsoever preclude own staff. 9 As general proposition, argument unexceptionable. But matter expressly addressed 2516, delegating 'any Despite does always contemplate assigned freely delegated. Civil Rights instance, prosecutions certification 'which delegated.' 245(a)(1). Equally precise forbidding employed legislation before us; think 10 legislation, passed prohibit, pain civil penalties,6 Act, most notably permitted connection crimes listed 2516. Judicial orders preceded containing prescribed 2518(1). findings interceptions, existence probable cause, 2518(3). themselves particularize extent nature authorize, 2518(4), expire within unless officials, 2518(5). supervision progress 2518(6), control custody recordings tapes produced 2518(8). contains specifying circumstances aggrieved persons obtain sought used Government. (a). 11 clear respects be, once limits imposes important preconditions obtaining all. legislated considerable detail providing evinced intent doubly sure restraint warrant surreptitious communications. These routinely step investigation. Rather, applicant state find normal tried failed reasonably appear unlikely succeed too dangerous. 2518(1)(c) (3)(c). plainly calls prior, informed desiring authority, ask eavesdrop. mature responsible interposed critical precondition 12 history supports view. indicated, 2516 dates 1961, predecessor bill considered 87th Congress. Section 4(b) bill, S. 1495, aimed prohibiting interception, initially judge' Hearings Wiretapping Eavesdropping Legislation Subcommittee Constitutional Senate Committee Judiciary, Cong., 1st Sess., (1961). phraseology, centered could empower Attorneys At charge views officially proposed, narrowed testimony was: 13 'This approach agreement. makes crime involving crimes. I understand suggest confine assistant whom give greater assurance executive determination need justifiability interception.' Id., 356. 14 proposal changed provide 372. 15 1495 enacted, limiting survived included almost identical proposals, now us.7 House 1967, draftsman basic outline engaged following colloquy: Chairman. About origin it, your originated Am correct regard? 17 'Professor Blakey. Yes, you are, 19 If am mistaken, present electronic equipment generally level anyway, Chairman, want without high passing it. well cases will get going just (sic) let go, ought highest Justice. cannot price pay.' Anti-Crime Program 90th 1379 (1967).8 20 turned out, Judiciary report pass H.R. 5037, entitled 'Law Enforcement Assistance 1967,' 113 Cong.Rec. 21861 (Aug. 1967). amended adding turn essentially reflected 917, favorably reported contained Committee's proposals stated: 21 'Section new chapter particular Federal, State, local prosecuting officer. 22 'Paragraph (1) centralizes publicly subject political process formulation policy surveillance techniques. Centralization avoid possibility divergent practices develop. Should abuses occur, lines responsibility lead identifiable person. itself go long way toward guaranteeing happen.' S.Rep. 1097, 2d 96—97 (1968). 23 particularly significant recognizes narrowly confined declares responsive process, category obviously belong.9 24 amendments tracking 23, 114 14798 14889. proceedings leading passage emphasis again That exclusive reiterated, drafted given advance Department.10 There attempt, however, extend beyond 25 insists 2516(2) wider dispersal among leaves up law,11 inappropriate level. desired centralize feasible so, desire easily implemented establishment confining To us, appears wholly odds construe permit will, General.12 26 reject contention comply requirements, issue judicially fashioned exclusionary rule deterring Fourth Amendment rights, III; our view, correctly challenged evidence. 27 communication, proceedings, trials, 'if chapter.' What disclosures forbidden, suppress, governed grounds: '(i) unlawfully intercepted; '(ii) insufficient face; 29 '(iii) conformity approval.'13 30 held offer meaning paragraph (i), General.14 determined indeed contrary statute; wrong (i) construed reach constitutional, statutory, violations.15 straightforward structure hand, unlawful referred include lack example, many fall unless, unlikely, hand paragraphs (ii) (iii) purely defaults overtones, these omissions deemed else necessity put another way, issues, drained surplusage. conclusion non-constitutional reached basis holding 'unlawful interceptions' matters; transgressions falling (iii). 31 position gains support bills fourth suppression—the cause—which omitted subsequent bills, apparently needed cause (i).16 Arguably, inference retained, 'necessary,' is, covered (i). 32 substance, observe render necessarily follow, believe, infringements use. reasonable believe inevitably foreclose confident 33 principal piece relative question Sess. emphasizes states 2518(10)(a) 'largely reflects existing law' 'press scope search seizure law.' Id. 96. section indirectly 'in chapter' 'should serve guarantee standards sharply curtail communications.'17 Moreover, search-and-seizure explicit prohibitions. Nardone States, 302 379, 58 275, L.Ed. 314 (1937); 308 338, 60 266, 84 307 (1939).18 IV 34 Even though required, nevertheless 'evidence derived' untenable. 35 2518, stand footing original authorizations separately. 'Extensions granted, accordance subsection (3) section.' (1)(e), extensions reveal (1)(f) contain 'a statement setting forth far explanation results.' order; found traditional sense believing concerning through facilities place commission lease suspect commonly alone nine alleged involved affidavit, intercepted, between individuals, unnamed, monitoring continued 'has used, described.' App. 62. 37 supporting set incorporated reference reasserted 'facts, details conclusions (the) affidavits' prior down relevant overheard physical movements observed around-the-clock conducted authorities. 65—81. concluded '(a) fter analyzing (Giordano's telephone) BNDD surveillance' identified aliases, associated suppliers buyers illegal trafficking perhaps connected operation undisclosed fashion. 79—80. full organization known. 80. Assertedly, extremely guarded conversations, specific pay phones' '(c)onventional completely ineffective adjunct 81. accordingly requested longer 15-day period. 38 foregoing place, mentioned plain about interceptions. equally coordinated operations, intertwined. asserted, conventional techniques 'would product earlier incredible. 39 Second, complying 2518. Subsection (1)(e) requires revealed, directs absence results. 2518(1) (f) realistically appraise probability future. during period, kind anticipated overheard, adequate can predicate results, great detail. Had granted; them, sufficient facts court's finding, 2518(3)(b), 'will interception,' 83, finding 2518(3)(d) above .' persons. Ibid. urged dissent ignored remaining telephone, independently forbids consideration meanwhile obtained. Obviously, presented, considered, relied case. noted, indispensable factor ordinary insufficient. essential, law, suppressed.19 41 Affirmed. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT RELEVANT PROVISIONS TITLE 42 OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT 2510—2520 43 2511. Interception prohibited. 44 Except person 45 willfully intercepts, endeavors intercept, procures endeavor communication; 46 uses, electronic, mechanical, device when— 47 to, transmits signal through, wire, cable, like 48 radio, interferes transmission 49 knows, reason know, component thereof sent mail transported interstate foreign commerce; 50 (iv) (A) Takes premises business commercial operations affect (B) obtains relating 51 (v) acts Columbia, Commonwealth Puerto Rico, territory possession States; 52 (c) discloses, disclose, knowing having know subsection; 53 (d) 54 shall fined more $10,000 imprisoned five years, both. 55 (2) operator switchboard, common carrier, while activity incident rendition service protection rights property carrier communication: Provided, carriers utilize observing random mechanical quality checks. 56 facilities, technical assistance who, chapter, communication. 57 Commission, discharge responsibilities Commission title Code, transmitted disclose unawful acting color party parties consent 59 committing tortious act Constitution laws State injurious act. Nothing 605 1934 (48 1143; 605) President take measures deems protect Nation against actual potential attack hostile power, intelligence security national activities. Nor anything overthrow force means, danger hearing, reasonable, disclosed power. 61 2515. Prohibition 62 Whenever therefrom trial, court, grand jury, department, agency, regulatory body, committee, subdivision chapter. Authorization 63 competent jurisdiction grant 2518 Bureau Investigation, made, of— 64 punishable death imprisonment year sections 2274 2277 Code (relating Atomic Energy 1954), chapters title: espionage), 105 sabotage), 115 treason), 102 riots); 65 186 501(c) 29, (dealing restrictions payments loans labor organizations), involves murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, title; 66 201 (bribery public witnesses), 224 sporting contests), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), 844 (unlawful explosives), 1084 (transmission wagering information), 1503 (influencing injuring juror, witness generally), 1510 (obstruction investigations), 1511 enforcement), 1751 (Presidential assassinations, assault), 1951 (inference commerce threats violence), 1952 (interstate travel transportation aid racketeering enterprises), 1954 (offer, acceptance, solicitation influence employee benefit plan), 1955 (prohibition enterprises gambling), 659 (theft shipment), 664 (embezzlement pension welfare funds), 2314 2315 stolen property), 1963 (violations racketeer influenced corrupt organizations) 351 assassination, assault); 67 counterfeiting 471, 472, 473 68 (e) bankruptcy fraud manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, dealing narcotic drugs, marihuana, dangerous 69 extortionate credit transactions 892, 893, 894 70 (g) conspiracy commit 71 attorney thereof, applicable authorizing, kidnaping, gambling, bribery, marihuana life, limb, property, year, 72 Procedure 73 Each writing oath affirmation applicant's information: 74 identity application; 75 complete applicant, justify belief issued, been, being, committed, description location type person, known, 76 why dangerous; 77 period maintained. automatically terminate obtained, establishing occur thereafter; 78 known individual of, persons, places taken 79 80 furnish documentary 81 enter ex parte modified, territorial sitting, determines that— committing, enumerated chapter; 83 interception; 85 which, where, offense, leased 86 (4) specify— 87 88 89 relates; 90 91 authorized, 92 shall, direct landlord, custodian forthwith accomplish unobtrusively minimum interference services custodian, according intercepted. Any furnishing compensated therefor prevailing rates. (5) No entered achieve objective authorization, event thirty days. Extensions section. purposes Every executed soon practicable, minimize attainment objective, (6) reports showing what achievement Such intervals require. 95 (7) 96 emergency exists conspiratorial activities threatening interest characteristic organized due diligence 97 grounds 98 forty-eight hours occurred, begins occur. immediately denied, whichever earlier. treated inventory served 99 (8) means possible, recorded tape comparable recording done editing alterations. Immediately expiration available issuing sealed directions. Custody wherever They destroyed denying kept ten years. Duplicate subsections 2517 investigations. presence seal subsection, satisfactory prerequisite 2517. 100 Applications judge. directs. good judge, 101 punished contempt Within ninety days filing 2518(7)(b) denied termination served, discretion justice, notice 103 entry 104 date disapproved denial 106 motion, counsel inspection portions justice. serving maybe postponed. 107 (9) party, less proceeding, furnished copy approved. ten-day waived finds possible prejudiced delay receiving information. 108 (10) move 109 110 111 approval. 112 opportunity aware motion. interests addition right appeal, granting approval, certify delay. diligently prosecuted. 2520. Recovery damages authorized. disclosed, ntitled recover person— 116 liquidated computed rate $100 $1,000, higher; 117 punitive damages; 118 attorney's fee litigation costs incurred. 119 A faith reliance constitute defense brought law. 120 POWELL, CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST join, concurring dissenting part. 121 agree majority contravened remedy join Parts I, II, For below, Court's conclusion, Part opinion, two 'pen register'1 122 pertinent facts. pen register monitor record 14-day numbers dialed Giordano. dispute lawful Amendment. exceed likewise cause. defect strength merits 2516(1). procedural irregularity therefrom' 123 dated 1970. latter maximum All three part, invalid 16. unlike marred improper authorization. 124 that, putting aside independent untainted constituted issuance satisfied imposed 2518(3).2 Preoccupied larger issues case, summarily dismissed insofar related orders: 125 showings defective. 'fruit poisonous tree' doctrine (1939); 2518(10)(a).' 1041 126 mention point. 522 127 With extension, derivatively tainted contention. simply Specifically, strictly (4)(d). misidentification problem extension. thereto reason.3 entirely. problem, arose Perhaps simple oversight, consider fate Thus lower courts ruled question. 128 Today adopted Appeals—the noted above, hold inadmissible resulting Chavez, 562, 1849, 380. decision removes sole advanced suppressing us doing note aspect 129 holds invalidity my view well-established principles, principles effectuate guarantees demonsrates majority's error. appear, analysis governs clarify deal reserve discussion II. 130 installation line III. instant King, 335 523, 548—549 (SD Cal. 1971), Vega, F.R.D. 503, 507 (EDNY 1971). rests hear sound 'interception' term defined 2510(4)—'the aural acquisition device' (emphasis added). doubt correctness allayed Report discussing explicitly register,' permissible.' S.Rep.No. 131 Because permissibility authorities depends entirely compliance Amendment.4 equivalent warrant, register. seemed assume evidence, doctrine. F.Supp., 1041. 132 (1939). prohibition encompassed well. reaffirmed offered become 'so attenuated dissipate taint,' id., 341, 268, improperly proved knowledge them source. aspect, principle illustrated Wong Sun 371 407, 441 (1963). essence, taint ends earth until dissipated intervening event. Of course, source suffice. 133 independent-source much vitality context other. Thus, discovered valid See, e.g., Anderson 344 792 (CA10 1965). obvious corollary inclusion indisputably allegations invalid. ultimate inquiry seized underlying illegally allegations, suffices show James 135 U.S.App.D.C. 314, 315, 418 1150, 1151 (1969); Sterling, 369 799, 802 (CA3 1966); Tarrant, 460 701, 703—704 (CA5 1972); Koonce, 485 374, 379 (CA8 1973); Howell Cupp, 427 36, (CA9 1970); Chin Kay 311 317, 321 1962).5 Weinfeld aptly point Epstein, 240 (SDNY 1965): 134 'There none contrary, proper grounds, grounds—considered alone—are vitiate entire invalidate warrant.' 82. precedent contrary.6 136 doubt. undeniably wiretap. heroin 17, second record, incorporation earlier, allegations. remand admitted 137 apparent. final footnote defective element authority.' suggest, reggister deny fully And, finally, contradict established shows light silences, bare assertion 'critical element' me, unexplained conclusion—not rationale. 138 Unlike extensions, prescribe elaborate unconstitutional nature, pertain violation. statute, rule, evidence: 139 'Whenever ..' 140 familiar model ban tree,' confirms phrase 'no incorporate nonconstitutional dimensions. explicitly: 141 '(Section 2515) largely applies (Nardone (58 314) (1937)) 338 (60 307) (1939.)) change attenuation rule. See 521 (2d (Cir.)), cert. 316 698, (62 1296, 1767) (1942); 471 (83 441) (1963).' 142 validity satisfaction conditions III.7 Iannelli, 339 171 (WD Pa. Ceraso, 355 (MD 1973). 143 group supervisor Narcotics Dangerous Drugs. sworn filed joint knowledge. swore affidavits, 'reassert(ed) facts, affidavits.' 66. Those sale distribution substantial scale, 2518(3)(a), criteria showed, numerous listd well-known violators drug traffic taking line. 2518(3)(b) (d). inadequacy alternative demonstrated agents unable discover supply method distribution. 2518(3)(c). 144 forth, $3,800 worth recounted highly suspicious conduct keeping surveillance.8 Like 145 substantiality summary question, instructions settled accord opinion. Appendix post, p. 534. Evidence i.e., records phone, phone 8. detailed length requests. Appeals, discussed IV, infra, gathered secure Circuit complies dictates Pisacano, 459 259 (1972), refused withdrawal guilty pleas discovery declaring 'not convinced gone wiretaps, reversed,' Department's consistent mandate 2516(1).' 264 n. 5. Shortly thereafter panel judgments convictions raising issue, 'adherence circuit' recently decided admonition staff.' Becker, 461 230, 236 (1972). every circuit court-approved Mantello, 156 2, 478 671 (1973); Roberts, 477 (CA7 494 Robinson, 468 189 1972), remanded evidentiary hearing 472 973 (en banc disposition resolved companion full, 509 provides: 509. Functions 'All employees vested functions— '(1) subchapter examiners Justice; '(2) Prison Industries, Inc.; '(3) Board Directors '(4) Parole.' sanctions 2511, draft prepared Professor G. Blakey University Notre Dame Law School regulate published President's Administration Task Force Report: Organized Crime, C, 113. added 18, empowered 108. Senator McClellan introduced 'Federal Wire Act,' 675, January 25, 1491 containing, 5(a), designations Controlling Through More Effective Laws Procedures (1967). Hruska 2050 June 18007, regulated wiretapping, provision, system bill. Hearings, supra, 1005. Representatives, 3, 13275, 27718. Ultimately, operative enacted 7, limitation frequently fore. Lumbard Circuit, Southern New York, March 'application .,' urged, recommendation unnecessary narrow crimes, factors greatly beginning observation 5a, him, carefully screened.' Enforcement, 171—172. urging adoption govern area eavesdropping subcommittee living former recommended prohibited 'unless States.' 511—512. And commented testifying subcommittee: thorough weigh how tighten Can tell more?' 894—895. appointed President, advice Senate, 506. regulation, assist review 'matters action' '(p)erform CFR 0.6. brief least four debate floor adopted, responded Lausche matter: 'Mr. LAUSCHE. Does written absolute, unconditional stop searches tapping, tapping? McCLELLAN. chief .. then, tapping official. He approves correct? district cannot, submit court.' 14469. debate, Long read Association Bar City Legislation, Rights, 'Proposed Berger York Katz States,' manner: 'Who Apply Bill (such county city Attorney). 'We focused principally accountable actions. Police own. seems anomalous apply, excluding Districts attorneys applications. reduce anomaly initiate applications.' 14473—14474. comments S.Rep.No.1097, (1968): general. function. centralization statewide State. Where exists, policymaking basis; next government. usually county, attorney, State's solicitor. areawide anywhere county. envision breakdown. Although jurisdiction, them.' deem suggestion acceptable practice subsequently, ratifies giving personally submission wide mark. Fifth F.2d, 193, 'authority never place.' ill Assistants screen screening begun predicated assumption given. raised manner conducting inapplicable situation. theory failing identify rendering 'insufficient face.' Manifestly, face, clearly, erroneously, special designation stood, facially despite subsequently discovered, error justifying 2518(10)(a)(ii). suggested willful fit terms Tr. Oral Arg. 33. issued. 111, 3803(k)(1) (C). So 388 41, 1873, 1040 78, 8(g)(3). (S. 2050) finally enacted. 1008, 2518(k)(1). omission appendix comparing 675 2050, Scott, cosponsor article Howard Journal, HowL.J. (1968), reprinted Scott's remarks 1968. 13205—13211. 'Senator Hruska's man says test implied (1).' 13211. 11, 96, 106, sanction compel prohibitions must, defines class suppress. (1939).) press across board proceeding(s). proceedings. privacy. forms integral limitations designed Along remedies, 2518(10)(a)) 2517, limits. (Except inapplicability jury over Congress,) (o)therwise, comprehensive.' substance 2511(1)(c) 'willful' 'knowing subsection,' ties propriety impropriety 'disclosure,' committee internal attribute impose penalties 'every processing Brief 38. Apart 380, suppression, 2511 liability 2511(1). Clearly, found. began supra. logs monitored asserted 'continued regarding narcotics.' 55. nothing indicate accorded treatment. installed facility. paper incoming originated, call, outgoing, completed. Its involve conversations. complexities explicated 1-38—1041 (Md.1972). 2518(3), determinations: '(b) '(c) '(d) person.' order: order.' 1060. Plainly, 'same reasons' concerns literally (4)(d) identification derivative-evidence suggests address guarantee, assuming applicability, cited few proposition above. Cantor, 470 890 defendant's claim refusing establish warrant. rejected 893. Jones, 475 723 1973), Upshaw, 448 1218 erroneous statements evaluating sufficiency Finally, Lucarz, 430 1051 1970), invited magistrate drawing negative counsel. affidavit. lending colorable Both Sixth Langley, 466 warrantless search. large aspects illustrates comment: 'It emphasized comprises minor portion search, invalid.' original). Nelson, 884 searches. several contradicts Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth Circuits text. principle, This, least, construction 2518(1)(e) (f). Ante, 532—533. applications' According majority, regardig rendered invalid, regardless respect, baffling statute. Certainly analogue fruit tree, distinguish determining remedy. logic wanted distinction, suppose Congress, result, leave intent. lawfully work summarized 'Giordano exhibits characteristics high-level trafficker-extreme caution. When travelling, continually uses counter-surveillance transactions, contacts small trusted individuals.'

Category: 0