Court Opinion

ID: 9750222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:37:23.681408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:04.765017
License: Public Domain

WIENER, Acting P. J., Dissenting.
In granting Westbrook’s Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress the wiretaps, the court explained:
“The wiretap recordings, and all evidence derived therefrom, must be suppressed pursuant to Penal Code section 629.14. Whatever other safeguards the Legislature may have included in the statute, it adopted the federal sealing provisions. The gist of those procedures is, that once the wiretaps are completed, the tape shall come under court control and be placed under seal under the direction of the judge. The statute permits storage by others, but not the sealing function. The point of the exercise is to deny the agency access to the tapes by a sealing operation conducted under the supervision of the judge. . . . The court is bound to apply the law in accordance with its terms and suppress the evidence.”
I agree with the trial court. The statutory requirement for court sealing is meaningless if the judge can merely delegate to law enforcement the job of sealing the tapes at a later time.
To a great extent the majority rests its conclusion on United States v. Abraham (6th Cir. 1976) 541 F.2d 624, which it describes as “the only case with facts similar to those in issue here.” (Maj. opn., ante, p. 50) Although this may be literally correct, there are a number of cases from both federal and state court which fairly reflect the appellate court’s understanding that the tapes must be physically presented to the authorizing judge (or at least a judicial employee) for sealing. (See, e.g., U.S. v. Vastola (3d Cir. 1990) 915 F.2d 865, 866 [“[T]he government did not immediately present them for judicial sealing, as required by section 2518 . . . .”]; United States v. Rodriguez (2d Cir. 1986) 786 F.2d 472, 476 [“[W]e suggested that any presentation made more than two days after the end of the wiretap could not be considered immediate”]; United States v. Cohen (5th Cir. 1976) 530 F.2d 43, 46 [approving a delay in sealing tapes “[although the better procedure would have been to deliver the tapes immediately to the judge . . . .’’j;1 State v. Chiarizio (1986) 8 Conn.App. 673 [514 A.2d 370, 382] [“We agree *54with the defendant that the statute requires that the tapes be sealed upon receipt by the panel’s custodian”], all italics added.) Admittedly, with the possible exception of Chiarizio, none of these cases actually hold physical presentation and judicial sealing are required.
Because Abraham is so important to the majority’s conclusion I think it essential that it be examined more closely. After reciting that nothing in the language of the federal statute or its legislative history indicates a congressional intent that the judge be present when the tapes are sealed, the Abraham court explains the sealing requirement “appears to be related to the purpose of maintaining confidentiality of the recordings.”2 (541 F.2d at p. 628.) The opinion goes on to conclude: “Courts have traditionally withdrawn particular records from public scrutiny by ordering them sealed to preserve confidentiality. The presence of the judge at the actual sealing would offer no additional guarantee that confidentiality would be maintained.” (Ibid.)
As the majority notes, Westbrook argues Abraham was overruled by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Ojeda Rios, supra, 495 U.S. 257. The majority correctly explains the issue in Ojeda Rios is different. It is nonetheless true, however, that Ojeda Rios firmly repudiates Abraham’s view of the purpose of the statute: “The primary thrust of § 2518(8)(a) [citation], and a congressional purpose embodied in Title III in general [citation], is to ensure the reliability and integrity of evidence obtained by means of electronic surveillance. . . . [T]he seal is a means of ensuring that subsequent to its placement on a tape, the Government has no opportunity to tamper with, alter, or edit the conversations that have been recorded. It is clear to us that Congress viewed the sealing requirement as important precisely because it limits the Government’s opportunity to alter the recordings.” (Id. at p. 263.)
Where the purpose of the statute is to prevent alteration of the tapes by the government, that purpose is served only where the tapes are removed from prosecution custody for sealing. It is true that presealing alteration is still a possibility, but the statute also addresses that issue by requiring that the tapes be presented to the judge “immediately” following the completion of the wiretap, and the burden is on the prosecution to offer a reasonable explanation for any delay. Moreover, it may be that Congress (and inferentially the California Legislature) was more concerned with the possibility of *55alteration after the nature of the defense became clear. Under the procedure followed in this case, no neutral third party was aware of when the tapes were actually sealed. This seems to me clearly contrary to the legislative intent underlying the statute.
I would therefore deny the petition.
The petition of real party in interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied July 22, 1993. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Cohen was disapproved on other grounds in United States v. Ojeda Rios (1990) 495 U.S. 257, 265, footnote 5 [109 L.Ed.2d 224, 234-235, 110 S.Ct. 1845].

The Sixth Circuit recognized that this interpretation was at odds with the decision in United States v. Sklaroff (5th Cir. 1975) 506 F.2d 837, 840, which had held that the purpose of 18 United States Code section 2518(8)(a) “is to safeguard the recordings from editing or alteration.” (See 541 F.2d at p. 628.) Sklaroff was disapproved on other grounds in United States v. Ojeda Rios, supra, 495 U.S. at page 265, footnote 5 [109 L.Ed.2d at pages 235-236].