United States v. Giordano

1974-05-13

Headline: Court requires suppression of evidence from wiretaps authorized by the Attorney General’s Executive Assistant, holding only the Attorney General or a designated Assistant may approve applications, restricting federal investigators’ use of intercepted communications.

Holding: The Court held that only the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General specially designated by him may authorize federal wiretap applications, and evidence from intercepts authorized otherwise must be suppressed.

Real World Impact:

Requires DOJ to have the Attorney General or a designated Assistant approve wiretap requests.
Makes improperly authorized intercepted communications inadmissible in trials.
Limits investigators’ reliance on intercepted material obtained without proper approval.

Topics: wiretapping rules, criminal procedure, privacy and surveillance, evidence suppression, Department of Justice approvals

Summary

Background

A federal narcotics investigation focused on a man who sold drugs to an undercover agent and whose phone was monitored. A United States Attorney filed an October 16, 1970 application to a federal judge saying that an Assistant Attorney General (Will Wilson) had authorized the request. The judge issued a wiretap order the same day and later extended it on November 6, using intercepted conversations as part of the basis. After arrests, hearings showed the applications misidentified the approving official: the Attorney General’s Executive Assistant had actually approved things behind the scenes, and letters bearing Wilson’s name were signed in his office. The trial court suppressed the intercepted evidence; the Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that the Executive Assistant’s approval violated the statute. The Supreme Court granted review.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the statute (Title III) allows the Attorney General to delegate wiretap-approval authority to his Executive Assistant. Reading the statute and its legislative history, the Court concluded Congress intended that only the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General specially designated by him may authorize such applications. Because the required pre-application senior-official approval was not given as the statute required, the Court held evidence obtained under the resulting orders was “unlawfully intercepted” for purposes of the statute and must be suppressed. The Court also found the November 6 extension relied on results of the unlawful intercept and so produced derivative evidence that likewise had to be excluded.

Real world impact

Federal prosecutors and investigators must follow the statutory chain of approval before seeking court wiretap orders. If the required official authorization is missing, both the intercepted communications and evidence that flows from them can be barred at trial. The ruling enforces Title III’s procedural safeguards rather than resting mainly on a separate constitutional exclusionary rule, and it resolves conflicting lower-court approaches about who may sign off on wiretap applications.

Dissents or concurrances

A separate opinion (Justice Powell, joined by three Justices) agreed with the main holding but disagreed that all extension and pen-register evidence had to be suppressed; he would remand to see whether independent, untainted information could lawfully support the later orders.