Court Opinion

ID: 9457487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:23:16.217835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:22.331630
License: Public Domain

*218ROSENN, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
Because Congress, by enacting the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, prohibited any unauthorized interception of wire and oral communications and made unlawful the use of the contents thereof in courts and administrative agencies, I believe that a proper disposition of this case may be made without reaching the constitutional issue raised by the appellant.
The three pivotal provisions of the Act are 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510(11), 2511(1)(c), and 2515.
Section 2510(11) provides that “ ‘aggrieved person’ means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed”. This definition is a codification of the traditional rule of standing, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969), that a person may challenge the admission of evidence on search and seizure grounds only if he alleges that his own Fourth Amendment rights, and not those of a third party, have been violated.1 Taking Sister Egan’s allegations of wiretapping as true, as we must given the posture of this case, I think she is plainly an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of Section 2510(11).
Section 2515 reads in full as follows:
“Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter." (Emphasis supplied)
It seems clear that, as here applied, the final italicized proviso means simply this: When government officials attempt to disclose information derived from wire or oral communications intercepted without obtaining the authorization required by Sections 2516, 2517 and 2518(1) through (8) and therefore attempt to violate the criminal provisions of Section 2511(1) (e) 2, the evidentiary sanction of Section 2515 becomes operative. There is nothing ambiguous about that sanction. Therefore, assuming once again that Sister Egan’s allegations are *219true, the eliciting of testimony from Sister Egan, through questions based upon information obtained through illegal electronic surveillance, would be in direct conflict with the disclosure provisions of Section 2511(1) (c) and the evidentiary prohibition in Section 2515 against the introduction of “evidence derived” from an illegal surveillance,3 as well as with the purposes and spirit of the legislation as a whole.4 In this posture, Sister Egan’s judicially-compelled disclosures would in reality be the illegal disclosures of the Government and not the voluntary disclosures of a party to an oral communication.
The Government urges, however, that, notwithstanding the evidentiary prohibition in Section 2515, Sister Egan may not challenge her subpoena or the questions asked of her since Section 2518(10) (a), read in conjunction with its legislative history, does not confer upon a mere grand jury witness “standing” to make a motion to suppress. Appellant urges the opposite interpretation of Section 2518 (10)(a). Although both Judge Adams, in Part I of his opinion, and Judge Gibbons agree with appellant on this point, I would not reach the question in this case since its resolution does not, in my opinion, materially affect the result.5
Assuming the remedy in Section 2518 (10) (a) to be unavailable to a grand jury witness, a prosecutor would presumably be able to call as a grand jury witness an agent who made or listened to illegal tapes, or he could even introduce the tapes themselves into evidence (although in both instances he would be violating the law), and no party to the illegally-overheard conversations would have a remedy by way of a motion to suppress. That is not this case, however. I think it is quite a different matter when, as here, the prosecutor attempts to elicit the testimony of an aggrieved verson himself. When this occurs, I believe that, regardless of the interpretation accorded Section 2518(10)(a), the aggrieved person should be able to stand mute and in the event of a subsequent civil contempt proceeding, raise the unequivocal prohibition of Section 2515 as a defense to a finding of contempt, unless the prosecutor can show an untainted independent basis for the questions sought to be asked. This is the rule of this case. In this and similar cases, this rule will provide substantially all the protection afforded by Section 2518(1)(a) without in any way being dependent upon that Section for its validity.6 It is man*220dated instead by the express prohibition in Section 2515.
Since Section 2515, in my opinion, compels this result, and since Congress in enacting Section 2515 undoubtedly weighed the competing policy considerations involved in excluding tainted evidence from grand jury consideration, I do not think this Court may now, sitting as a super-legislature, substitute its judgment on policy for that of the Congress.7 Even if our views on the policy questions were relevant, however, my conclusion would be the same, since I am convinced that, on balance, the public interest is best served by the result we reach.8
Our result is in harmony with, and in furtherance of, Congress’ strongly-expressed desire to eliminate illegal electronic eavesdropping. It provides victims of illegal surveillance with a semblance of some minimal relief in the fact of “an unlawful invasion of privacy”. Perhaps more importantly, it relieves judges of the anomalous duty of finding a person in civil contempt for failing to cooperate with the prosecutor in a course of conduct which, if pursued unchecked, could subject the prosecutor himself to heavy civil and criminal penalties.9 “Courts which sit under our Constitution cannot and will not be made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1875, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
I do not believe that the countervailing costs in the form of possible interference with grand jury procedures, will out-balance these benefits. Only a very small percentage of witnesses called before grand juries are hostile to the government's case. Even if all future hostile witnesses stand mute and raise a Section 2515 issue, presumably there will have been no wiretaps at all in a very high percentage of those cases, and a contempt hearing will take no longer than the persecutor’s representation to that *221effect. Only where there actually has been a wiretap will a hearing be in any way extended. In those instances where the wiretap has been duly authorized, the hearing should generally be relatively brief. I would expect that the percentage of unauthorized wiretaps will be extremely low, especially under the rule we adopt, and that the need for extended hearings will be proportionately slight. In the unlikely event, however, that the number of such cases is higher than I expect, the increased burden on the operation of grand juries will be more than offset, in my opinion, by the increased need for a prophylactic rule which such a disregard for the law would evidence.
Finally, I should add that I agree that the grant of immunity under Section 2514 in this case cannot cure a violation of Section 2515. The grant of transactional immunity provided for in Section 2514 properly eliminates any Fifth Amendment objections which a witness may have, since a Fifth Amendment violation does not mature until compelled testimony is introduced “against” that witness in a criminal proceeding. This is not true of Fourth Amendment violations, however, which mature, and are complete, at the time of the illegal search. It is no answer to an invasion of a person’s privacy, therefore, to assure him that he will be forever protected against the consequences of such an invasion, since the Fourth Amendment protects persons from unreasonable searches and seizures themselves, not merely from the consequences, criminal or otherwise, which flow therefrom. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Terry v. Ohio, supra.
For the foregoing reasons, I join in the vacation of the District Court’s judgment of contempt.
SEITZ and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges, join in this opinion.
HASTIE, Chief Judge, who has joined in the opinion of ADAMS, Circuit Judge, believes that the reasoning in this opinion also is sound and provides adequate support for the decision of the court.

. The Court in Alderman, in footnote 9, 394 U.S. at 175, 176, 89 S.Ct. 961, noted the identity between the standing rule enunciated in that case and the definition of “aggrieved person” in the Act. I do not believe that either footnote 9 or Carter v. United States, 417 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1969) can be read as speaking to the additional, and significantly different, “standing” issue involved in this case. Alderman and Garter denied standing to parties who vicariously assert violations of a third person’s Fourth Amendment rights. Neither case is helpful, however, in deciding whether a person in Sister Egan’s position, who alleges a violation of her own Fourth Amendment rights, ought to be denied standing for other reasons.

. Section 2511(1) (c) provides:
“Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—
* * * * *
(c) willfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication in violation of this subsection * * *
* * * * *
shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

. In addition to being criminally liable under Section 2511(1) (c), the prosecutor would also be civilly liable for damages under Section 2520.

. “No one quarrels with the proposition that the unauthorized use of [electronic eavesdropping] techniques by law enforcement agents should be prohibited * * *. The prohibition, too, must be enforced with all appropriate sanations. Criminal penalties have their part to play. But other remedies must be afforded the victim of an unlawful invasion of privacy. Provision must be made for civil recourse for damages. The perpetrator must be denied the fruits of his unlawful actions in civil and criminal proceedings." S.Rep. No. 1097, United States Code, Congressional and Administrative News, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 2112, 2156 (1968). (Emphasis supplied).

. I would join my two brethren if a reading of 18 U.S.C. § 3504(a) overcame my doubts as to the applicability of Section 2518(10) (a) to tlie facts of this case. However, in view of the legislative history of Section 3504(a), H.Rep. No. 91-1549, United States Code, Congressional and Administrative News, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 4007, 4027 (1970), I am not convinced that that section can be read as altering Congress’ intent as to the scope of § 2518 (10) (a), expressed by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in its report on the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. S.Rep. No. 1097, United States Code, Congressional and Administrative News, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. pp. 2112, 2195 (1968). Despite Judge Adams’ exhaustive analysis of the Senate Report, I think a good case can still be made that Congress’ intent as to the reach of Section 2518(10) (a) is not consistent with the position taken in the opinion of the court.

. Technically, of course, there is a distinction between the remedy provided by Section 2518(10) (a) and the remedy provid*220ed in the context of a civil contempt proceeding. Since the former allows the aggrieved party to make his challenge even before questions are asked of him and therefore relieves him of the necessity of being a party to a civil contempt proceeding. Upon inspection, however, the distinction loses its substance, since in either case the Court must pass upon the witness’ Section 2515 claim before it may issue a citation for contempt. Therefore, the risks to the party claiming to be aggrieved are the same in both cases. Furthermore, there are really no procedural advantages, from the witness’ point of view, in a Section 2518(10) (a) proceeding, since the advance disclosure provisions of Section 2518(9) clearly do not apply to grand jury proceedings. S.Rep. No. 1097, United States Code, Congressional and Administrative News, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., pp. 2112, 2195 (1968).

. In his dissent my Brother Gibbons recognizes this when he states:
“Of course if the result is compelled by case law or statute my judgment that the result is harmful to the public interest counts for little.” (Emphasis supplied)

. To the extent that Judge Gibbons’ dissent reflects his concern over the prac-tieal consequences of the constitutional holding suggested in Part III of the Court’s opinion, it focuses unnecessarily on consequences which cannot flow from the actual holding of this ease. The result in this case is predicated on the reasoning of Part II of the opinion of the court, in which all five judges constituting the majority concur. Parts I and III, on the other hand, reflect the views of only two members of the Court (Chief Judge Hastie and Judge Adams).

. The fact that the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act was passed after the Second Circuit’s decision in United States ex rel. Rosado v. Flood, 394 F.2d 139 (2d Cir. 1968) is another crucial factor, in addition to those mentioned in the foregoing opinion of the court, in distinguishing that case from our own. The Second Circuit was not confronted with the express prohibitions in that Act. Furthermore, Congress’ great concern over unlawful electronic surveillance, as expressed in the Report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (see, e. g., footnote 4, supra), was not made known until five days after Rosado was decided (the opinion was filed on April 24, 1968; the Senate Report was published on April 29, 1968).