Court Opinion

ID: 9461688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:22:48.51134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:13.657643
License: Public Domain

OAKES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I dissent.
Appellants’ affidavits were sufficient to “trigger” 18 U.S.C. § 3504, thereby requiring the prosecutor specifically to check appropriate agencies, United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267, 281 (2d Cir. 1974), and to be able to inform the court specifically of the results of his search. Here the search to uncover electronic surveillance was inadequate. See United States v. Aloi, 511 F.2d 585 (2d Cir. 1975); Beverly v. United States, 468 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1972).
The inadequacy of the Government search is underscored when viewed against the substantial efforts necessarily exerted in obtaining the adjudication of contempt here. The witnesses were first called before the Grand Jury on January 28, 1975; after the granting of immunity, they were recalled on February 13. It was not until February 19, 1975 that the appellants were finally held in contempt. In the light of the three weeks during which this matter was pending the United States Attorney’s Office certainly could have commu*160nicated with the appropriate government agencies in order fully to safeguard the" rights of these appellants. I am not talking about a time consuming adversarial investigation of government agencies which might hamper the work of the grand jury. I would require only an affidavit evidencing the fact that the prosecution was reasonably diligent in its search for possible illegal wiretaps.
The failure of the prosecutor to make at the very least a so-called “eight agency search”1 for possible electronic surveillance may be a result of an uneasiness about what the search might uncov-' er. Instances in this and other courts of denials by the government that any such surveillance took place, later replaced by retractions, emphasize the need for stricter safeguards in this area. United States v. Smilow, 472 F.2d 1193 (2d Cir. 1973); Cf. In re Tierney, 465 F.2d 806, 813 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Smith, 321 F.Supp. 424 (C.D.Cal.1971).
In re Persico, 491 F.2d 1156 (2d Cir. 1974) , is inapplicable because there the Government had acknowledged the existence of electronic surveillance but had submitted three court orders under which the surveillance had been conducted. Thus, the appellant in Pérsico was asking the court to look behind the legality of court ordered surveillance in a civil contempt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a) and to suppress the fruits of the surveillance under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(a), a statute which does not include grand juries. There the court orders had given Pérsico the protection of the judgment of a “neutral and detached magistrate.” Cf. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975).
Here, appellants had requested the Government to affirm or deny the existence of surveillance under 18 U.S.C. § 3504 which specifically includes grand juries. The insufficient search for electronic surveillance leaves open the possibility that surveillance had taken place, thus potentially depriving appellants of their rights under Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 92 S.Ct. 2357, 33 L.Ed.2d 179 (1972), to challenge questions derived from illegal surveillance.
I would remand for a hearing at which the Government would have the opportunity to present a specific denial of electronic surveillance.

. This would include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, The Customs Service, The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Postal Service.