Legal Document

495 U.S. 257 110 S.Ct. 1845 109 L.Ed.2d 224 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Filiberto OJEDA RIOS, et al. No. 89-61. Argued Feb. 28, 1990. Decided April 30, Syllabus During a criminal investigation, the Government secured series of court orders authorizing electronic surveillance respondents, as mandated by Title III Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 seq. Section 2518(8)(a) requires, in pertinent part, that: (1) recording "shall be done such way will protect from editing or other alterations"; (2) "[i]mmediately upon expiration period order, extensions thereof," recordings are to made available judge who issued order sealed under his directions; (3) "[t]he presence seal . satisfactory explanation" for its absence is prerequisite use disclosure evidence obtained recordings. Among obtained, was an 27, 1984, respondent Ojeda Rios' Levittown, Puerto Rico, residence some nearby public telephones, which extended until July 23, when he moved another community. On new covering home, which, with extensions, expired on September 24. October 13, three days after car, all Rios tapes were sealed. The also it wiretap two telephones Vega Baja, effective January 18, 1985, but that February 17. A March 1, May Baja June 15. After they indicted various offenses, respondents suppress result of, inter alia, these wiretaps. District Court suppressed Levittown based solely delay their sealing. found 27 not extension therefore there at least 82-day delay—starting 23—in sealing tapes. Similarly, 1 could considered because seeking Government's failure satisfactorily explain delay. Thus, 118-day those Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. applies well complete Its primary thrust ensure reliability integrity means surveillance, requirement important precisely limits opportunity alter narrow reading suggested Government—that since must either bear provide "satisfactory seal's "absence," does apply where actually seal, regardless why applied—is plausible interpretation congressional intent, requires just any one has been immediately underlying order. view would create anomalous prosecution requesting months without risking substantial penalty. Pp. 262-264. 2. language only occurred excusable. submission—that satisfied if first explains then demonstrates authentic—would nullify requirement's function safeguard against tampering foreclosed provision's plain words. fact incentive avoid lengthy pretrial suppression hearings no more than statement rarely answer issue posed explained. Moreover, argument suspect early foreclose challenge authenticity, require proceedings. 264-265. 3. This case remanded determination whether explanation substantially corresponds now advances: delays goodfaith, objectively reasonable misunderstanding statutory term "extension," supervising attorney's Circuit cases believed indicated required seek meaningful hiatus investigation whole. Those support conclusion this theory reasonable, although incorrect, law time delays, extent prove absolutely correct, held too strict standard. Nonetheless, "satisfactory" within meaning statute unless advanced hearing question addressed Appeals. 265-267. 875 F.2d 17, vacated remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, joined, post, p. 267. STEVENS, dissenting BRENNAN MARSHALL, 268. William C. Bryson, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Richard A. Reeve, Hartford, Conn., respondents. Justice WHITE Court. arises 1968 (Title III), amended, seq., regulates interception wire, oral, communications. Except extraordinary circumstances, see 2518(7), may conducted pursuant See §§ 2518(1)-(6). contents communication intercepted authorized chapter shall, possible, recorded tape wire comparable device" alterations." section further provides thereof, shall issuing directions." explicit exclusionary remedy1 noncompliance requirement, providing provided subsection, derived therefrom subsection 2517."2 2 In case, surveillance. later offered bore seals had attached statute. we address 3 Respondents members Rican organization known Los Macheteros (the "machete wielders"). All have charged federal crimes relating robbery 1983 Wells Fargo depot Connecticut, netted approximately $7 million. began investigating connection rocket attack United States Courthouse Hato Rey, Rico. Effective Filiberto near residence. attack, discovered indicating involved robbery. final expiring 1984. terminated 9, apartment El Cortijo, community adjacent Levittown. Cortijo 24, Another originally entered 11, finally 10, created during 4 As part November shared Juan Segarra Palmer Luz Berrios authorization each month seven months, last 1985. That due difficulties finishing affidavit necessary obtain extension, did date. thereafter twice wiretaps judicially 15, 5 offenses robbery, Following hearing, Connecticut refused tapes, telephone Baja. 695 F.Supp. 649 (1988). doing so, determined and, therefore, obligation arose calculated With respect initial order—which 1985—because 12-day reauthorization 118 expired. Without determining authenticity sets them basis alone. 6 Second affirmed 17 (1989), rejecting delays. Because scope role provision generated disagreement lower courts, granted certiorari, 493 889, 231, 107 183 vacate remand. 7 argues states admissibility, "absence" applied. unpersuasive. intent terms purpose begins command "immediately" then, prior clause relied Government, "the " (emphasis added) admissibility clear import provisions encompasses total timely applied seal. Contrary what so plainly 2518(8)(a), us immediacy aspect requirement. 8 S.Rep. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 105 (1968), embodied general, see, e.g., v. Giordano, 416 505, 515, 94 1820, 1826, 40 341 (1974), itself establish Rather, ensuring subsequent placement tape, tamper with, alter, edit conversations recorded. It Congress viewed 9 perhaps even few before trial, Since likely district automatically tapes,3 sense come into play, though exposed alteration time. Such ignores purposes strained withstand scrutiny. Like every question, conclude sealing, tapes.4 10 second contention 2518(8)(a)'s authentic. submission, however, sensible construction essentially tampering. explanation, explanation. difficult imagine situation delayed Even deliberate enough, long tapes; yet hardly called To hold proof nontampering substitute words provision. 11 true offering authentic consistent Congress' concern about tampering,5 confident always easily detected, liberty agree obvious imposed safeguard. 12 contends otherwise, proposed test, face conversations. Furthermore, concedes, Tr. Oral Arg. 10-11, 22-23, event 13 We understood approach surely 2518(8)(a). 14 Finally, consider established good cause case. good-faith, "extension." According attorney arguing understanding relies primarily interpreting 15 16 regarded "extension" 2518 "was clearly same individuals conducting enterprise" being investigated Principie, 531 1132, 1142, n. (1976), cert. denied, 430 905, 97 1173, 51 581 (1977). again involving gap between circumstances presented deemed ones stated "intercept premises involves persons, whole surveillance." Scafidi, 564 633, 641 (1977), 436 903, 98 2231, 56 400 (1978). These do asserted correct; indeed, Circuit's decision indicates contrary, pressed excuse reasonable. establishing delay, particular correct rather law, think Nevertheless, remand cannot merely appellate level. our review sufficiency should submissions Therein lies problem Whether clear. Compare App. 4-5 (no ongoing "meaningful hiatus" occurred), id., 26-27 (same), 36 (separate interrelated investigation), (same). threshold advances. judgment vacated, proceedings opinion. 19 ordered. 20 whom BLACKMUN joins, concurring. 21 I join Court's delay; reflect actual reason today holds, court's findings court, post hoc given appeal. ante, understanding, delay—not appeal—meets 22 MARSHALL join, dissenting. 23 comply requirements unfortunate consequence lawyer's law. mistake constitute failure, is, both recognized, close question. Both courts resolved doubts favor requiring compliance carefully drawn extremely sensitive privacy interests. resolution correct.1 24 ordinary citizen often presumptive knowledge laws complex confusing. similar presumption prosecutor responsible insuring prolonged extensive program issues turn details 1,011 separate extensions—I believe give special deference evaluations record Chief Judge Oakes succinctly decisive me: "We unfortunately here resulted disregard nature activities undertaken. danger course, today's dereliction becomes tomorrow's conscious avoidance interests affected statutes sufficiently important, believe, reasonably high standard acquaintance law." (CA2 1989).2 25 Accordingly, while rejection affirm Appeals.3 contains general remedy, applicable communications unlawfully intercepted, facially invalid, conformity authorization. 2518(10). 2517(3) "[a]ny person received, chapter, information concerning communication, accordance disclose derivative giving testimony oath affirmation proceeding authority State political subdivision thereof." Nothing discretion deny governmental request oral indicate that, ever exercised it. 9. Respondents' countered mandatory duty timing request. Id., 36-37, 47. See, Gigante, 538 502, 506-507 1976); Johnson, 225 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 42, 696 115, 124 (1982); Massino, 784 153, 156 1986); Mora, 821 860, 864-865 (CA1 1987). Courts agreed respect. Falcone, 505 478, 484 (CA3 1974); Sklaroff, 506 837, 840-841 (CA5 1975); Cohen, 530 43, 46 Lawson, 545 557, (CA7 Diadone, 558 775, 780 1977); McMillan States, 877, 878-879 (CA8 Angelini, 565 469, 471-473 1977). explained above, read differently. acknowledges prosecutor's incorrect. Ante, 266. However, posits "objectively reasonable" interpret treat suspects locations earlier legal excuse, 1132 1976), 633 1977), (1978), debatable reasons. First, Principie different III, 2518(8)(d), written notice 90 termination treated four directed previous location "an extension" section. While enforcing 2518(8)(d) informed concerns prematurely exposing carries risk. accurate recordkeeping supports possible. Scafidi Principie's definition alternatively reasons brief met rigorous 502 1976). Second, Rico orders, below "law circuit controlled material difference exists circuits." Gerena, 649, 657-658 (Conn.1988). First cases. construed strictly identified factors measure 860 used Mora sustaining F.Supp., 657-658; 22-23 1989). rule—as treatise case—is "[a]lthough deadline warrant extended, postpone deadlines phone premises." Fishman, Wiretapping Eavesdropping 190 (1978); 282, (acknowledging exception footnote). Prosecutor Bove recall consulted, using Fishman treatise. 35, 40, 42-44. Cf. 527, 1832, (1974) ("Congress intended satisfy directly implement intention limit intercept procedures situations calling employment investigative device"). If exist, determine delay" required. 267 (O'CONNOR, concurring).

Classification Label: 0