Scott Et Al. v. United States

Background

The government obtained a court order to listen to calls on a specified telephone because agents believed named people were using it to traffic narcotics. The order required that interceptions be conducted to minimize listening to innocent conversations. During 30 days of surveillance, agents recorded all 384 calls. Their reports later showed about 40% of intercepted calls related to narcotics and 60% did not. The trial judge found agents made no effort to minimize and ordered all evidence suppressed, but the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling.

Reasoning

The core question was whether agents’ admitted failure to limit interceptions required suppression of the evidence. The Supreme Court denied review, leaving the appeals court’s emphasis on the objective reasonableness of the calls actually intercepted rather than on the agents’ subjective intent. The appeals court held that even without minimization efforts, the interceptions could still be reasonable based on what was heard, and the Supreme Court left that decision intact by refusing to take the case.

Real world impact

As left by this ruling, law enforcement may face less immediate penalty when agents record many or all calls during a wiretap. The decision may reduce incentives for agents to avoid listening to clearly innocent conversations. Because the Supreme Court denied review, the minimization issue remains unresolved nationally and could produce different rules in different courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented from the denial and warned that refusing review allows round‑the‑clock interception, undermines privacy safeguards, and urged the Court to define clear minimization rules.