Court Opinion

ID: 9464974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:31:50.533475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:54.472658
License: Public Domain

McKAY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result in this case because I believe the government met its burden to lay the foundation for the challenged exhibits. They were all the products or partial *391products of an electronic device attached to a telephone line and activated by a 2600 cycle signal on the line. The government’s testimony that an illegal 2600 cycle signal is the common method of bypassing proper long distance billing equipment was not challenged. The government presented testimony that the daily tests of the monitoring device under known test conditions produced three simple results every time: (1) the test 2600 cycle signal caused a comma to be printed on a tape, (2) the same test signal caused the number dialed to be recorded on a tape, and (3) the same test signal activated a common tape recording device which recorded any conversations transmitted over the tapped line. There was no challenge to the government’s testimony that the monitoring device was properly attached to the telephone instruments associated with the defendant. There was substantial corroboration of the end product of this monitoring technique. Under this state of the evidence the government laid an adequate foundation for the admission of the products of the monitoring device. It was not necessary either to qualify an expert on the internal mechanics of the monitoring device or to take judicial notice of its accuracy.