Court Opinion

ID: 9614071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:22:08.435861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:56.917566
License: Public Domain

APODACA, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent because I disagree that the police complied with the trial court’s wiretap order regarding the minimization of innocent calls or that partial suppression is an adequate remedy. Rather, I would hold that the police’s failure to properly identify a category of innocent telephone calls, as mandated by the trial court’s order, was unreasonable under the circumstances and that all of the calls should have been suppressed as a result. The majority opinion has accurately outlined the minimization procedure used by the police in this appeal. It is not disputed that the police intercepted every call to or from defendant’s home. My concern is not with the initial interception of every call, as that was necessary for the police to determine the identity of the callers, as well as the substance of the calls. See United States v. Chavez, 533 F.2d 491 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 426 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 2237, 48 L.Ed.2d 837 (1976). Instead, I am troubled by the police practice of continuing to monitor the calls involving defendant’s wife, children, and calls between defendant and his mother after a determination was made or should have been made that such calls were innocent. “If the agents learn from this initial total interception that there is a pattern of innocent conversations, then they should cease eavesdropping on that group during the remainder of the tap.” United States v. Quintana, 508 F.2d 867, 874 (1975). As a condition of authorizing the wiretap, the trial court required that the police provide it with a list of the innocent callers, if practicable. The police conducting the wiretap testified that they determined it unlikely that the calls in question were of an incriminatory nature. Despite this determination, however, not only did the police fail to provide the trial court with a list of the innocent calls, but they continued to monitor the calls after establishing that they involved innocent callers. I disagree with the majority that there was sufficient judicial supervision of the wiretap. The basis for my disagreement is that the trial court was not alerted to the fact that the police had identified a group of innocent callers. As far as anyone could tell from reviewing the reports given to the trial court by the officers, no one whose calls were continually monitored was above suspicion. Thus, the trial court had no reason to suspect that innocent calls were being monitored in contravention of the order. The majority relies on United States v. Dorfman, 542 F.Supp. 345 (N.D.I11.), affd, 690 F.2d 1217 (7th Cir.1982), to support its conclusion that partial suppression is adequate to remedy the unauthorized monitoring of innocent calls. I, on the other hand, do not consider the remedy offered in Dorf man sufficient to neutralize the damage caused by the government’s failure to minimize. Rather, I would rely on the reasoning and analysis found in United States v. Focarile, 340 F.Supp. 1033 (D.Md.), affd sub nom. United States v. Giordano, 469 F.2d 522 (4th Cir.1972), rev’d on other grounds, 416 U.S. 505, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974). In this court’s opinion the minimization requirement of [the statute] would be illusory if it were enforced on an item-by-item basis by means of suppressing unauthorized seizures at trial after the interception is a fait accompli. Minimization as required by the statute must be employed by the law enforcement officers during the wiretap, not by the court after the wiretap____ “[T]he limited system which the statute creates is designed to prevent unreasonable invasions of privacy, not to repair them____” (Emphasis added.) [United States v. King, 335 F.Supp. 523, 545 (S.D.Cal. 1971) ]. While partial suppression ... may act as a sufficient prophylactic measure in the context of seizures of physical objects, the seizure of conversations differs so significantly as to warrant a stronger safeguard. Knowing that only “innocent” calls would be suppressed, the government could intercept every conversation which had definite incriminating value anyway, thereby completely ignoring the minimization mandate of [the statute]. A conversation once seized can never truly be given back as can a physical object. The right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment has been more invaded where a conversation which can never be returned has been seized than where a physical object which can be returned has been seized. Focarile, 340 F.Supp. at 1046-47 (emphasis in original). I would adopt the Focarile rationale as law in New Mexico. Nor can I agree with the majority that defendant did not establish a “pattern” of wrongful interception. That defendant, by necessity, had to point to “particular calls [that he] contend[ed] should not have been intercepted,” does not mean that he did not establish a “pattern” of nonminimization. United States v. Dorfman, 542 F.Supp. at 391. The only case I found that approached defining a “pattern” for purposes of minimization was Dorfman. The court stated: We do not simply focus on the individual conversation and determine whether it contains any incriminating statements; rather, where a pattern of unlawful interception is established we examine the challenged interceptions to determine whether they fall within that pattern. If the government continues to intercept, for example, a person not named in the authorizing order after his or her identity has been established and a pattern of innocent conversation takes place, it would be of no moment that eventually that individual was heard discussing incriminating matters; the conversation would still be subject to suppression because it would have been “unlawful” for the monitors to be overhearing the conversation in the first instance. Id. at 395. To conclude that there was a pattern “requires a showing of ‘repeated, unreasonable interceptions’ before improper minimization will be found.” United States v. Costello, 610 F.Supp. 1450, 1477 (N.D.I11.1985), affd sub nom. United States v. Olson, 830 F.2d 195 (7th Cir. 1987), cert, denied, 484 U.S. 1010,108 S.Ct. 708, 98 L.Ed.2d 658 (1988) (quoting United States v. Pine, 473 F.Supp. 349, 353 (D.Md. 1978). The “pattern” of wrongfully monitored calls identified by defendant were all those calls to or from his children, wife and mother, once they were determined to be nonincriminating. That one of the mother’s calls referred to the fact that the police were in the neighborhood should be of no consequence as an after-the-fact justification in continuously monitoring her earlier calls once the police themselves determined her calls were not related to the narcotics conspiracy. After having initially identified the caller as one they felt was innocent, the police were no longer authorized to continue the monitoring of the calls, irrespective of the calls’ duration. See United States v. Quintana; United States v. Chavez; but see United States v. Scott, 516 F.2d 751, 755 (D.C.Cir.1975) (even after a category of innocent calls is established, it will still likely be necessary to intercept some portion of each call to determine whether it falls into the category being minimized), cert, denied, 425 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 1519, 47 L.Ed.2d 768 (1976). I agree that an objective, fact-specific test of the reasonableness of the officers’ actions is appropriate. I do not, however, agree that, under the circumstances of this appeal, the officers’ conduct in continuing to monitor the innocent category of calls was reasonable. Again, my disagreement with the majority goes not to the fact that each call was initially intercepted, but that the continued monitoring of the innocent calls was unreasonable. This case did not involve a complex conspiracy, expanding over several states and involving hundreds of people, as in those cases noted by the majority. The tenor of the wife’s, children’s and mother’s conversations did not involve “coded” language about drugs, nor did the police argue that there was a reasonable inference that these people were in any way involved in defendant’s illegal pursuits. I think these factors weigh heavily in favor of a finding of unreasonableness under the circumstances present here. As observed in United States v. Hyde, 574 F.2d 856, 869 (5th Cir.1978), “[i]t was appropriate for agents investigating this widespread conspiracy to monitor calls more extensively than might have been appropriate in a simpler case.” (emphasis added). The facts of this appeal represent such a “simpler” case and the government’s actions in monitoring every call should be held to closer scrutiny. Based on my conclusion that the only adequate remedy for the failure of the police to properly minimize the innocent calls was total suppression of all calls and all evidence resulting from information gleaned from those calls, I would reverse defendant’s conviction for lack of probable cause. If all of the information obtained from the calls was illegally obtained, then it should follow that the information obtained as a basis for the arrest warrant and the eventual seizure of the drugs were obtained as a result of the initial illegality. Because the arrest warrant was based on evidence illegally obtained, the eventual seizure was a fruit of the poisonous tree and that evidence must also be suppressed. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); State v. Everitt, 80 N.M. 41, 45, 450 P.2d 927, 931 (Ct.App.1969).