Court Opinion

ID: 9741985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:04:57.8729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:27.681235
License: Public Domain

White, C. Thomas, J.,
concurring.
I concur. While agreeing with the majority opinion, I find it necessary to distinguish United States v. Bellosi, 501 F. 2d 833 (D.C. Cir., 1974), from the current case. Federal statutes controlling judicial authorizations of wire interceptions are similar to Nebraska’s in that both require disclosure of all previous applications for judicial authorization of interceptions involving the same person. The Bellosi case involved three successive wiretaps on the same person. The applications for the second and third interceptions did not disclose the first interception. The first and third interceptions were authorized by Judge Hart. The first was authorized on July 29, 1971, the third in January 1973. The second interception was authorized by Judge Greene. The Bellosi opinion ruled that the latter two interceptions were unlawful due to the failure of the applicant to disclose the first wiretap. The case at hand can be distinguished from the Bellosi case which was based upon the reasoning that a judge, in authorizing an interception, would need to know of any prior authorizations in order to properly decide if a new interception should be authorized. The second wiretap in Bellosi was authorized by a different judge than who *97authorized the first interception. The first and third interceptions were authorized by the same judge 1 y2 years apart. In the current case, the interceptions were authorized by the same judge only 34 days apart. While there has been a technical violation of section 86-705, R. R.. S. 1943, it is obvious that compliance with that section would not have provided the judge with any additional information not already known by him.
Clinton, J., joins in this concurrence.