Document: 59 L.Ed.2d 733 99 S.Ct. 1465 440 U.S. 741 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Alfredo L. CACERES. No. 76-1309. Argued Jan. 8, 9, 1979. Decided April 2, Syllabus Regulations in the Internal Revenue Service Manual prohibit "consensual electronic surveillance" between taxpayers and IRS agents unless certain specified prior authorization is obtained. With respect to monitoring of face-to-face (nontelephone) conversations, Director Security Division or Assistant Commissioner (Inspection) may authorize recording such conversations emergency situations, but if there at least 48 hours which obtain approval, a signed request must also be submitted Attorney General designated General. In connection with audit income tax returns respondent his wife, an agent met on, among other dates, January 31 February 6, 1975. Emergency approval for use equipment both meetings was obtained, pending Justice Department authority monitor 30-day period, never obtained 6 meetings. At these meetings, respondent, unaware surveillance, paid offered money favorable resolution audit. The wore concealed radio transmitter allowed record conversations. Subsequently, prosecuted bribing agent. trial he moved suppress tape recordings on ground that authorizations required by regulations had not been secured. District Court granted motion, Appeals affirmed. Both courts held monitored accordance regulations, concluding neither meeting fell within provision because exigencies were product "government-created scheduling problems." Held: recordings, testimony who question, excluded from evidence conceded violation regulations. Pp. 749-757. (a) While court has duty enforce agency regulation when compliance mandated Constitution federal law, here either Constitution, Lopez v. United States, 373 427, 83 1381, 10 462; States White, 401 745, 91 1122, 28 453, statute, Bridges Wixon, 326 135, 65 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103, distinguished, adopt any particular procedures rules before engaging consensual recording. 749-751. (b) None respondent's constitutional rights violated actual agency's its own That without whereas others similarly situated would, assuming generally follows recorded only does amount denial equal protection. Nor officials' construction situation as emergency, even erroneous, raise questions. And this case Due Process Clause implicated, since cannot reasonably contend relied their breach effect conduct. Finally, Administrative Procedure Act provides no grounds judicial enforcement remedy sought invalidation action rather means exclusionary rule. 751-755. (c) This declines rigid rule, urged whereby all concerning eavesdropping would excluded. can accept further argument rule exclusion, secured should under more limited, individualized approach, since, contrary, exemplifies those situations case-by-case it appearing action, though later found violate nonetheless reflected reasonable, good-faith attempt comply appropriate have received promptly. 755-757. 545 F.2d 1182, reversed. James J. Brosnahan, San Francisco, Cal., respondent. Kenneth S. Geller, Dept. Justice, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Mr. STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 question we certiorari decide whether (IRS) admitted criminal taxpayer accused 436 943, 98 2843, 56 784 (1978). 2 Unbeknown three Agent Yee Yee's person. Respondent motion. Ninth Circuit reversed third tape; concluded adequate obtained.1 As first two tapes, however, agreed followed exclusion therefore required. It latter conclusion issue here. 3 Government argues probative inappropriate sanction executive department's case, moreover, suppression especially deliberate nor prejudicial, did affect statutory rights. We agree ordered reverse judgment Appeals. 4 * Neither Congress requires official are overheard consent one conversants.2 Such is, prohibited obtained.3 5 sets forth detail obtaining approvals.4 For types requests require explanation reasons proposal, type used, names persons involved, duration proposed monitoring. Approval many different levels required, depending kind surveillance contemplated circumstances request. Telephone Regional Inspector Division. advance requested given verbally, although subsequently confirmed writing. nontelephone national well regional level. Director, Acting Division, If General, II 7 On March 14, 1974, wife 1971 returns. After Mrs. Caceres left meeting, "personal settlement" $500 exchange When returned office, reported offer superiors prepared affidavit describing it.5 8 reflects discussion until indicate, telephone conversation 21, authorization,6 time during period September 1974.7 continued work records throughout 1975, Caceres' accountant.8 9 27, recorded. According affidavit,9 proceeded stages. First, discussed calculations Caceres, accountant. asked additional week check records, told them necessary sign extension statute limitations otherwise expire soon. stated consult attorney signing extension, call decision day. then office return car. He revived subject settlement." time, indicated give immediately, matter finally settled. refused offer, insistence, eventually might consider it. 11 subsequent initiated Yee, monitored,10 another Yee. 30 5:15 p. m., following day m. 8:15 a. 31st, Francisco telephoned Washington afternoon. same day, written days and, due course, forwarded submission Justice. 12 gave promised him notice showing deficiency upon agreed. future conversation. 13 next called arranged review agreement. Because yet acted perhaps received, authorization, again renewed promise pay return, $2,000 help settling 1973 1974 14 11, Deputy approved days. cover $500. commence ever earlier monitorings 6. 15 recognized terms "emergency situations" less than available secure authorization. They recognized, too, each instance, exist scheduled But problems."11 16 challenge conclusion. presented III 17 A court's most evident law. 152-153, 1451-1452, example, invalid deportation basis statements Immigration Service's requiring signatures oaths, finding designed "to afford [the alien] process law" providing "safeguards against essentially unfair procedures."12 18 unlike Title Omnibus Crime Control Safe Streets 1968, U.S.C. § 2510 et seq., regulates conducted party conversation, statutes impose restrictions conversants. 19 protect privacy individuals position. 439, 1388, 462, Fourth Amendment provided protection individual whom speaking. doing so, repudiated suggestion defendant "constitutional right rely possible flaws agent's memory, credibility being beset corroborating susceptible impeachment," instead "the risk petitioner took offering bribe agent] fairly included accurately reproduced court, faultless memory mechanical recording." analysis applied informant's person, know speaking agent: 20 "Concededly police conceals connections write down testify them, warrant authorizing encounters violating latter's Hoffa 385 [293], 300-303, [87 408, 374.] purposes, result immediately reporting transcribing defendant, (1) simultaneously carrying supra ; (2) carries transmits located elsewhere transmitting frequency. Lee [343 747, 72 967, 96 1270.] conduct revelations operating do invade defendant's constitutionally justifiable expectations privacy, simultaneous made transmissions talking whose trustworthiness necessarily risks." supra, 751, S.Ct., 1125 (opinion WHITE, J.).13 21 Our decisions White demonstrate regulations.14 equally clear violations disclosed 22 true, similar position approval. difference arguably No claim could be, promptly addressed denied. result, inconsistency complain purely form, discernible taken treatment 23 Moreover, failure while attributable fact officials responsible administration relevant construed meaning Their obviously so. error interpreting surely 24 implicated promulgated guidance benefit suffered substantially agency.15 regulation, proper authority. was, prejudiced sense better off postponed after General's precisely prejudice ensued issued makes perfectly delay processing request, doubt about propriety sufficiency, sole reason why 11. 25 Act16 case. APA authorizes arbitrary, capricious, abuse discretion, "without observance procedure law."17 Agency inconsistent standards directs enforce.18 Indeed, some our important holding agencies bound cases originally brought APA.19 26 action. Rather, dealing prosecution seeks primarily rested importance deterring community outweighs securing conviction specific trial.20 view none here, precedents enforcing deter provide support rule's application case.21 IV 27 eavesdropping, safeguarding citizenry provisions. rules. Nevertheless, pausing evaluate Government's power so,22 decline exclude governing investigations considered desirable, valuable public large deterrence flowing occasional items trials.23 Although suggest order cause abandon modify ignore possibility every regulatory serious deterrent impact formulation govern prosecutorial procedures.24 Here, Executive itself internal sanctions knowing electronic-surveillance regulations.25 To go beyond that, take away primary responsibility fashioning content, indeed existence, remain Executive's authority, fewer protective long run, far like contained Manual, tolerate erroneous displayed record, except framed mere precatory form. 29 approach. Quite approach applied. Washington. situation, thought present, sufficient. questions certainly circumstances, simply exercise whatever discretion Reversed. MARSHALL, BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 32 today holds patent admissible prosecution. so ruling, majority determines mandatory implicates interest, noncompliance. I subscribe proposition, Court's inevitably erode law charged administration, respectfully dissent. 33 line beginning 2103 (1945), "one investigation . legally entitled insist rules" legislative body See Nixon, 418 683, 695-696, 94 3090, 41 1039 (1974); Morton Ruiz, 415 199, 235, 1055, 1074, 39 270 Yellin 374 109, 1828, 778 (1963); Vitarelli Seaton, 359 535, 79 968, 1012 (1959); Dulles, 354 363, 77 1152, 1403 (1957); ex rel. Accardi Shaughnessy, 347 260, 74 499, 681 (1954). Underlying judgment, central concept process, government private citizens law.1 Where interests adhere professes judged. 547, 976 (Frankfurter, J., concurring part dissenting part). 34 Despite well-established IRS's abide investigative finds facts reaching conclusion, relies absence underpinnings inability establish circumvention. draws holdings principles founded. 35 consistently demanded governmental safeguard statute. writ habeas corpus where disregarded applicable Board Appeals' suspension orders. final deport obligation intermediate Board, effect, denies himself sidestep dictate decision." U.S., 267, 503. reasoning, vacated Foreign officer's security discharge. acknowledging Secretary State obligated "rigorous substantive procedural safeguards," "having done not, unchanged, proceed regard them." 388, 1165. Similarly, 1012, adherence Interior employee-discharge "generous requirements bind [the] agency." recently, declined permit Bureau Indian Affairs depart establishing assistance-eligibility "more rigorous required." 1074. supra; (1945).2 Thus, merely facilitate housekeeping, cf. American Farm Lines Black Ball Freight Service, 397 532, 538, 90 1288, 1292, 547 (1970),3 significant protections, insisted compliance. 36 extend protections dispute. Berger New York, 388 41, 63, 87 1873, 1885, 1040 (1967), "[f]ew threats liberty greater posed devices." An self-imposed constraints devices, Amendment, operate preserve "measure personal security" potentially surveillance. 790, 1145, 453 (1971) (Harlan, dissenting). 37 history clearly establishes they intended interests. outgrowth 1965 1966 Subcommittee Senate Judiciary Committee techniques agencies. Testimony hearings revealed extensive unauthorized wide variety techniques. Hearings S.Res. Practice Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st 2d Sess., 1206-1208, 1762-1763, 1774-1777, 1828-1830, 1923-1935, 1999-2003 (1965-1966) (hereinafter Hearings).4 Among practices offensive wired sound. See, e. g., id., 2017, 2078. Of general concern total detect disapprove Evidence supervisory personnel condoned illegal wiretaps, see 1517, 1546-1548, upper level remained ignorant widespread departures prescribed policies. 1118, 1124-1128, 2005. 38 response congressional investigation, convened special Inquiry recommend new procedures. scope Commissioner's representations concerned preventing "violation[s] person's rights," "carefully control[ling]" investigatory which, "although legal, nevertheless tend conscience." Id., 1122 (testimony Cohen). assured detailed adopted 1967 guarantee control. 1122-1126; CCH [1967] Stand.Fed. Tax Rep. ¶ 6711, 71,756. Those recodified substantial modification, instant proceedings. Compare 652.22 (Sept. 1975) Supplement, Wiretapping Electronic Eavesdropping, 93G-70 (July 10, 1967). Against historical backdrop, inarguable Indeed otherwise. places weight illegality. "reasonably relied" ante, 752, "discernible effect" ibid., concludes interest. fundamentally misconceived. By assessing prejudice, disregards holdings, regularity rest. 40 make subjective reliance controlling deflects inquiry issue, legitimacy subjectively believes due, disregard impunity consistency. person rely," ibid, ignored. extent views critical context, effectively reduces hortatory Presumably occasion discover breaches will facing rarely, ever, able planned view.5 focus guarantees. Naturalization failed observe witness oath, petitioner's involved invoked hearing. So (1963), overturned contempt refusal House Un-American Activities ignored formally injuries witness' reputation attend hearings. Yet dissent pointed out, predicated First grounds, nature proceedings, "no way session willingness answer questions." 141, 1846 (WHITE, 42 today, irregularity outcome issue. injury reputation, session. Chairman testified hearing appropriate. 117-118, n. 1833-1834. Nonetheless, Court, expressed difference, less. 121, 1835.6 43 (1959), meaningful Interior's departure employee discharges reasons. filed suit, revised dismissal complied affected discharge him, reinstatement. 44 Implicit decisions,7 itself, premise force determinative. very manifest, foremost guarantor process. embodies commitment independent result. defendants qualifies commitment. becomes measuring obligations, dispense unlikely prove dispositive majority's invites capricious unfettered decisionmaking prevent. 45 Any fair mandates engages interests, abrogate convenience. hold surveillance-authorization regardless litigant 46 Having violation, fruits illegality suppressed Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961). Accordingly, my analysis, unnecessary powers, Part opinion. Because, addresses register profound disagreement reasoning ultimate 47 determining unwarranted misconduct attaches great significance agents' ostensible "good faith" construing "emergency" Ante, 757, 756. admit charitable characterization. alleged attempted 1974. month. contact occurred initiate 10-month hiatus. reflect justification schedule timely requests, expeditiously. positing colorable believing constituted situation[s]," 756-757, ignores findings below absolute control over exigency solely making.8 plainly instance officers grasp nuances doctrine area sharply divided. Cf. Bivens Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 417, 1999, 2015, 619 (BURGER, C. dissenting); Stone Powell, 428 465, 538-540, 3037, 3072-3073, 49 1067 (1976) demonstrates unambiguous unquestionably good faith demonstrate, consideration figure present analysis. Restricting instances bad invite gamble grant absolution egregious Since judges lightly cast aspersions motives officials, relegated rare insolent calculated indifference noted context violations, "[i]f alone test, people 'secure .' police." Beck 379 89, 97, 85 223, 228, 142 (1964). Just intent determinative cases, see, g. Mincey Arizona, 437 385, 2408, 57 290 (1978); Brignoni-Ponce, 422 873, 95 2574, 607 (1975); Almeida-Sanchez 413 266, 93 2535, 596 (1973), material suggests regulations." 756 (footnote omitted). Significantly, assert theory employed practice. "[s]elf-scrutiny lofty ideal," Wolf Colorado, 338 25, 42, 69 1359, 1369, 1782 (1949) (Murphy, dissenting), nothing us indicates disciplinary enjoy confidence. surrounding conception operation illustrate persistent toward enforcement.9 abdication increase vigilance disciplining discovering violations. remove incentive exposing evasions disingenuous constructions diminish interest self-monitoring.10 50 "a procedures." Ante 755-756. speculation. fact, contrary. 1967, retained Miranda warnings noncustodial settings despite suppressing Sourapas, 515 295, 298 (CA9 1975); Leahey, 434 (CA1 1970); Heffner, 420 809 (CA4 1969). Significantly points withdrawn Ex rel., 681, (1954), (1957), (1959). 51 Even inhibiting self-regulation solidly grounded, justify Under today's decision, largely unenforced unenforceable courts.11 share apparent much lost withdraw protest enforcement. Congress, repeatedly dissuaded legislating area,12 step into breach. event cavalierly Miller 357 301, 78 1190, 1332 (1958).13 Particularly where, stand place hesitate effect. 52 utterly Equally disturbing acknowledge countervailing considerations. apart deterrence, values served excludes lawless Denying noncompliance gives conduct.14 Also, significantly, reaffirms Judiciary's values. Preservation integrity demands unlawful intrusions "find judgments courts." Weeks 232 383, 392, 341, 344, 58 652 (1914). Elkins 364 206, 222-223, 80 1437, 1446-1447, 1669 (1960). Today's confers "taint partnership lawlessness." Calandra, 414 338, 357, 613, 624, 561 (1974) (Brennan participate venture. 53 affirm below. 1182 (9 Cir. 1976). relating sufficient disagreed, approve delegated Attorneys specifically deputies. 1126, (plurality opinion); 2511(2)(c); infra, drafted conform October 16, 1972, Memorandum Heads Departments Agencies. memorandum departments exceptions exigent preclude Department; instituted head department agency, him. Paragraph (in Sept. pertinent part: "(1) non-telephone Requests or, his/her absence, Director. redelegated. These temporary requesting advance. reached "(2) Written mechanical, devices overhear, transmit permission telefaxed National Office four anticipated use. "(3) [A request] Chief, Investigations Branch, contain [reason use; used; involved; location equipment; (limited date); manner method installation] "(6) occur, contacted monitor. pursuant exception excess "(7) If, submitted, desired extended [appropriate form]. addition Use Equipment requestor." App. 20, 23-24, 46. 25-27, form (No. 5177) disclosure dates previous authorizations. dated 31, termed reports 24, May June July 23, August 29, single up days; intervals consistent successive authorizations, established attention. follow-up March, monitored. From point Pet. Cert. 16a Court); 21-22. 65-67. properly authorized. rejected challenge, 16a-17a. ruling F.2d, 1187. 20a Court) ("the 'emergency' created wholly I.R.S."). Bilokumsky Tod, 263 149, 155, 54, 56, 68 221 (Court assumed law"). WHITE stated: "Nor too ready erect barriers accurate reliable. times produce reliable rendition what said unaided existence likely informant change mind, chance threat unfavorable cross-examination confound testimony. Considerations favor informer's privilege version events question." 753, 1126. follow, logic obey them. "Where affected, incumbent follow possibly 270. (holding relief "with passing alien's followed); (invalidating State's Undersecretary consultation full satisfied); dismissals followed). (reversing committee heard session). Raley 360 423, 437-438, 1257, 1265-1266, 1344, precluded refusing state investigating commission erroneously assurances, express implied, refuse answer. Cox Louisiana, 559, 476, 487, punished demonstrating "near" courthouse highest city advised demonstrators meet proscription demonstrations courthouse. Arizona Grocery Co. Atchison, T. & F. R. Co., 284 370, 183, 76 348 Interstate Commerce Commission's retroactive rate); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. 316 407, 422, 62 1194, 1202, 86 1563 (agency "entitled rely" ripe review). underlying rationale foregoing inapplicable passed 1946, 60 Stat. 237, codified 551 seq. 701 seq.. 706. Curators Univ. Mo. Horowitz, 435 78, 92 948, 956, 55 124; part) ("This judicially evolved administrative now firmly add, rightly takes sword shall perish sword"). seems rules, classified "internal." ICC information applications followed. invalid, Commission measure administering deems resolve quickly correctly urgent transportation O.T. 1956, 40; 1958, 101, 7. complaints 1009 (1964 ed.), then-applicable judicial-review provision. Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 633, 636-637, 1731, 1741, 601; 656, 1692, 1081; 217, 1444, 1669. 1332, likewise inapplicable. Rule Evid. 402 3501 exercising Brief 42. Amsterdam, Perspectives Minn.L.Rev. 349, 416-428 McGowan, Rule-Making Police, 70 Mich.L.Rev. 659 (1972). Cooper, Agencies Courts 289-290 (1951) ("[T]oo prohibiting encourage tendency almost pressed induce device promulgating vague impossible show rules"). 652.1(3) ("Any knowingly violates countenances policy removed Service"). always expressly Clause, explicable terms. Act, 754 19. mentioned opinions. 539-540, 972-973, turn 373, 386-387, 1152. predecessor, cases. sanctions, Accardi. precedent dismissed Curators, 124 (1978) (dictum). uniformly, believe properly, interpreted resting foundations. Konn Laird, 460 1318 (CA7 1972); Antonuk 445 592, 595 (CA6 1971); Hollingsworth Balcom, 441 419, 421 7, Lloyd, 431 160, 171 Canal Zone Brooks, 427 346, (CA5 809, 811-812 1969); Schatten 419 187, 191 Berger, Do Really Bind Regulators, Nw.U.L. Rev. 137 (1967). Bridges, oath 749, safeguards "against 153, 1452. However, language intimation "mandated" 749. assist compiling decisionmaking. distinguishing "intended confer benefits face ." 538-539, 1292. summarized Senator Morse: "The reveals wiretapping overzealous agent, logical reasonable consequence well-defined program .." 928 90th expect requirement otherwise, demand contexts, mandating same: prevent unchecked involved. objective. 1835, dubious part, prudent reluctance speculate how branch circumstances. little difficulty hypothesizing mattered 752-753, problematic next. Not affecting readily lend themselves counterfactual 1187 responded: "I'll arrange your convenience." 15. enthusiasm self-discipline Long "generally speaking, wrongdoing subcommittee directly explicitly it." 1118. performance exemplary. Intelligence engaged "instances" improper year, "instance" defined include phone calls. Oversight Operations Operations, 94th 426-431, 450 (1975) Hearings). employees demoted. actuate suspension. There, home completely unrelated duties" suspended five 451; Reply 17, 9. Four reprimands. Eight oral admonitions, writing became folders. 451, 453. 451. nominal hardly self-restraint, particularly identify 16-17. Professor cites proposition "may evidence," 755, submits article through "remains essential." 429 (1974). maintains, "necessary occasions" problems circumventions, affords "only incentive" incorporate training. Ibid. supra. litigation plausible alternative Unless initiated, strains credulity suppose indictment assume expense, mention risks antagonizing Supreme Rights Suspects Criminal Cases, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 785, 787 (1970). 1122-1124, 1144 Cohen); Alexander); 448 Compliance Wolfe). Miller, forcibly entered apartment announcing purpose ruling. Oaks, Studying Exclusionary Search Seizure, U.Chi. L.Rev. 665, (1970) (by society consequences infringement invokes magnifies moral educative Over term integrate fourth amendment ideals value system norms behavior agencies").

Category: 0