Elvin Lee Bynum v. United States

Background

These cases involve people whose home telephones were put under federal electronic surveillance in a narcotics investigation, including a suspect named Bynum and others. Supervising prosecutors and monitoring agents recorded nearly 2,000 calls over weeks. Agents were told to record all calls except those they thought might be attorney-client privileged, and many innocent third parties’ and attorneys’ calls were recorded and sometimes listened to.

Reasoning

The central question raised was whether the surveillance complied with the statute’s “minimization” rule — the law’s command that agents avoid intercepting communications of people not targeted by the investigation. The Supreme Court declined to take the cases, so it did not decide those questions. A separate opinion by Justice Brennan (joined by two colleagues) explained the legal and factual problems in the record and argued the Court should have agreed to review narrow questions about how to limit and supervise electronic recording.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the lower-court rulings stand and the nation’s highest Court did not supply a clear, uniform guide for judges or law-enforcement about how much recording of non-target calls is allowed. People whose private calls were recorded, attorneys whose calls were intercepted, and supervising judges and agents must rely on existing lower-court decisions rather than new Supreme Court rules.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan’s dissent urged limited review to answer four specific issues: when a mere mechanical recording counts as an interception, what minimization standards apply, what judicial oversight is required, and what remedy fits violations.