Document: 416 U.S. 562 94 S.Ct. 1849 40 L.Ed.2d 380 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Umberto Jose CHAVEZ et al. No. 72—1319. Argued Jan. 8, 1974. Decided May 13, Syllabus Under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 1968 each application for a court order authorizing interception wire or oral communication, 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(a), order, 2518(4)(d), must identify officer application, Attorney General, an Assistant General specially designated by him, may authorize 2516(1). The contents intercepted communications, evidence derived therefrom, not be received in at trial if disclosure information would 'in violation of' III, 2515, suppressed on grounds, inter alia, that communication was 'unlawfully intercepted,' 2518(10)(a)(i), 'insufficient its face,' 2518(10)(a)(ii). In this case applications orders to wiretap telephones respondents Chavez Fernandez, two narcotics offense suspects, incorrectly identified as official applications, whereas with respect it had been Fernandez General's Executive Assistant. After Chavez, other were indicted, District Court, respondents' motions, held secured through both wiretaps failure individual who actually authorized further because neither nor application. Court Appeals affirmed all respects. 478 F.2d 572. Held: 1. Because phone Assistant, rather than any whom alone 2516(1) confers such power, under properly suppressed. United States v. Giordano, 505, 1820, 341. Pp. 569—570. 2. Misidentifying wiretap, when himself gave approval, no sense omission requirement satisfied wiretapping electronic surveillance is lawful hence does require suppression evidence. supra, distinguished. 570—580. (a) Where established responsibility approval fixed compliance screening requirements assured, there justification suppression. 571—572. (b) face' within meaning 2518(10)(a)(ii), since clearly 'on person he being could give do so recited, notwithstanding subsequently shown incorrect. 573—574. (c) misidentification did affect fulfillment reviewing functions required Congress, and, itself, render conducted 'unlawful' 2518(10)(a)(i) content interceptions, derivative evidence, otherwise legislative history concerning 2518(1)(a) (4)(d) suggest they meant, themselves, occupy central, even functional, role guarding against unwarranted use surveillance. 574—580. 512, part, reversed remanded. Sol. Gen. Robert H. Bork, petitioner. James F. Hewitt, San Francisco, Cal., respondents. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 This case, like 341, concerns validity procedures followed Department obtaining judicial intercept communications 1968, 82 Stat. 211—225, §§ 2510—2520, propriety suppressing gathered from court-authorized where statutory have fully satisfied. As more described limits who, among federal officials, approve submission appropriate district court, designates, 2516(1), delineates contain, upon what findings granted, shall specify, 2518(1), (3), (4).1 Within general framework, are particular relevance case. Section provides approving include, information, 'the identity . application.' Similarly, 2518(4)(d) authorization itself specific question adjudication here, which unnecessary resolve whether, has fact made, but official, obtained We hold mandate these circumstances. 2 * Respondents indicted conspiracy import distribute heroin 21 173, 174 (1964 ed.). addition, respondent Umberto separately charged 1952 using causing others telephone between California Mexico, performing acts, facilitate unlawful activity, traveling same purpose. Upon notification Government intended introduce Chavez' Fernandez' phones trial, filed motions suppress, challenging legality Department's leading issuance permitting interceptions. Affidavits opposition his represented submitted February 18, 1971, personally approved 25, time unavailable, pursuant understanding applying standards understood them, act 3 Each however, 2516, 'specially designated' Criminal Division, Will Wilson, 'to (the applicant attorney) make Order communications.' Moreover, appended form letter, addressed attorney making purportedly signed stating signer reviewed attorney's request apply 2518 made requisite probable-cause determinations 'facts circumstances detailed' request, 'you hereby power delegated me proceeding ., conferred him 2516 application' order. Correspondingly, Court's declared given 'pursuant John N. Mitchell, exercise powers General' 2516. 4 discrepancy respective transmitted indicating Wilson explained result standard procedure Department. While apparently refrained designating memoranda routinely sent office, over initials, 'with regard your recommendation given' interception, 'for purpose authorizing' Evidently, reflect notice though face suggested decision whether Wilson. fact, revealed affidavits Wilson's then Deputy Assistants 'Wilson examine files expressly applications' either 25 orders, name accordance (his) Division' letters attorney, exhibits applications. signing regarded 'ministerial act' Deputies sign dispatch letter every instance favorably acted Office General.' 5 individuals 'identified Chief Judge Carter, Congress public' mandated (4)(d), respectively. suppressed, admitted 'neither ever application,' requires. 6 512. With tap, assumed, authority affidavit stated. Nonetheless, deemed 'misrepresentation' 'apparently deliberate deception courts highest law officers land.' id., 515, 517, tap comply (4)(d). 'intended eliminate possibility institutional decisions,' fearful occurred approved, 'there nothing prevent future Attorneys remaining silent proved embarrassing.' F.2d, 516. 7 granted certiorari, 412 905, 93 2292, 36 969, conflict position taken Ninth Circuit issue inaccurate identification circuit considered question.2 agree those appeals misidentifying approval; hence, we reverse portion judgment remand proceedings permit address challenges find necessary consider.3 reasons stated today Accordingly, affirmed. II 8 correctly (4) (d) require. Of doubt. But follow deficiency reporting, used There claim constitutional infirmity arising defect, merit claim, look scheme determine provided procedural error. 9 2515 criminal certain proceedings, 'if chapter.' Aggrieved persons move, timely manner 2518(10)(a), suppress grounds 10 '(i) unlawfully intercepted; 11 '(ii) insufficient face; 12 '(iii) conformity approval.' 13 concluded preliminary central safeguard preventing abuse means investigative surveillance, intentionally restricted category officials only might designate Hence, secure one specified prior renders invalid 2518(10)(a)(i). Failure report submit represent similar III's precautions warrant resting 14 little clear bore Thus, Senate Report accompanying favorable states 'requires makes, (,) set out. fixes responsibility.' S.Rep.No.1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 101 (1968), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. 2189. And note agency will fixed.' Id., 103, Admin.News 2192. 15 calculated mislead considering certainly effect misleading also misidentified reliance statements perceive served misrepresentation To contrary, think cannot seriously contended subordinate, greater hesitation issuing said course, if, correct none reposed step. undoubtedly thought condone full reporting assure substantive safeguards followed.4 say III. 16 Neither forth 2518(10)(a) relied rely first i.e., intercepted' face.' Support latter drawn Focarile, 340 F.Supp. 1033, 1057—1060 (Md.), aff'd sub nom. 469 522 (C.A.4 1972), aff'd, identifying equivalent failing anyone official. contentions persuasive. 17 Here, made. recited. That incorrect detract facial sufficiency order.5 behind despite language appears realistic sense, therefore, can failed possessed plausible, persuade us, purposes their place regulation. Though rejected, Government's mean requirements, go far 'unlawful.' establish rule odds statute itself. 'disclosure' apparent section paragraph (i) reach procedures, else paragraphs (ii) (iii) drained meaning. Giordano holds include 'failure satisfy directly substantially implement congressional intention limit situations calling employment extraordinary device.' Supra, 527, S.Ct., 1832. 19 present (iii). Requiring facilitates court's ability conclude 2516; requiring serves 'fix responsibility' source approval. contained aids judge reports 2519.6 requires issues denies action about including 'identity 30 days, Administrative Courts, 2519(1)(f). An annual body, contain denying judge, 2519(2)(a). Finally, summary judges acting prosecutors April year Office, 2519(3). basis public evaluation' operation 'assure community system court-order(ed) administered ..' 107, 2196. adherence thus simplify assurance makes responsible determining how should fulfilled roles played regulatory system. 20 Nor sections, is, example, see 516 seq., 1827 legislation regulate earlier, proposed drafted President's Commission Law Enforcement Administration published proposal specify 'who Task Force Report: Organized Crime, App. C, 109, 3803(a)(1) (1967). bill, now 2519, 111, 3804(a)(6) (b)(1). It not, information. 110, 3803(e). S. 675, bill introduced Senator McClellan January 1967, 'Federal Wire Interception Act,' 113 Cong.Rec. 1491, requirements. Hearings Controlling Through More Effective before Subcommittee Laws Procedures Committee Judiciary, 1st 77—78, 8(a), (d), 9(a) 2050, Hruska did. 2518(a)(1) 2519(a)(6) (b)(1) 2518(e). Hearings, 1006 1008. well appeared 2518(e)(4) H.R. 13482, Sess. House never reported out committee retained 917, combination 675 whose provisions ultimately enacted Despite appearance modification during process, real debate surrounded adoption, designed fix responsibility, indication overall No significant function paper major protections accomplished apparent. When established, himself, result, state instead misidentification, interceptions 2515. deem strict nonetheless keeping responsibilities imposed engage sought. 22 remanded consistent opinion. 23 ordered. 24 Judgment part relevant Appendix U.S., 534, 1835. instances erroneously recited denied ground substantial James, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 88, 98, 494 1007, 1017 (1974) ('immaterial variance'); Pisacano, 459 259, 264 n. (CA2 1972) ('discrepancy meaningfully subvert scheme'); Becker, 461 230, 235 ('harmless error'); Ceraso, 467 647, 652 (CA3 ('subsequent satisfactory'); Bobo, 477 974, 985 (CA4 1973) ('sufficient compliance'); Cox, 462 1293, 1300 (CA8 ('it irrelevant Mitchell'). See Roberts, 57, 59 (CA7 1973), holding improper suggesting 'we inclined elevate substance record discloses based support demonstrate need opposed less intrusive investigation, 2518(1)(c), particularly describe sought intercepted, 2518(1)(b) (iii), allege facts sufficient justify uncertainty termination date 2518(1)(d), adequately show probable cause 2518(3); moreover, order's directive minimize innocent conversations agents minimization, 2518(5), challenged. R. 159—197. None questions us now, passed them. advises spring 1972 revised authority, attorneys, courts, accurately unless happens Brief 9. Respondents' attempt analogize insufficiency search supported false affiant, some Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 41, King States, 282 398 1960), Fourth Amendment, ex rel. Pugh Pate, 401 1968), cert. denied, 394 999, 89 1590, 777 (1969), asserted identifies fail. Without passing soundness cases, recalled cause, separate officials. 2518(1) (3). depending 2519 full: '§ 2519. Reports communications. '(1) thirty days after expiration (or extension thereof) entered 2518, denial Courts— '(a) applied for; '(b) kind '(c) for, modified, denied; '(d) period number duration extensions order; '(e) '(f) enforcement application; '(g) nature facilities intercepted. '(2) principal prosecuting State, political subdivision (g) subsection (1) preceding calendar year; description extension, approximate frequency incriminating (iv) nature, amount, cost manpower resources interceptions; arrests resulting offenses made; trials convictions assessment importance (f) year. '(3) Director Courts transmit complete Such analysis data subsections (2) section. binding regulations dealing section.'

Category: 0