Court Opinion

ID: 9461603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:18:58.015896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:09.143399
License: Public Domain

ADAMS, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the result reached by the majority.
Like Judge Hunter, I conclude that evidence derived from a court-approved wiretap may not be suppressed under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(a)(ii) where, as here, the wiretap has in fact been authorized by a Justice Department official empowered to do so under 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1), and the only defect in the authorization procedure is in the identification of the authorizing officer.
Since the then Attorney General authorized the challenged wiretaps, I find it unnecessary to decide the further legal question whether an Acting Assistant Attorney General is “responsive to the political process”1 and thus empowered by 28 U.S.C. § 2516(1) to authorize wiretaps.

. United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 520, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974).