APPLICATION OF UNITED STATES FOR AN ORDER, ETC.

Decision Date31 August 1982
Docket NumberMisc. No. 81-0035 (PG).
PartiesIn the Matter of the Application of the UNITED STATES FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING the INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AT the PREMISES KNOWN AS CALLE MAYAGUEZ 212, HATO REY, PUERTO RICO. Application of José E. CARRERAS, Federico Lora, Miguel Pérez García, Avelino González, Angel Agosto, Jorge Farinacci, Juan Ramón Acevedo, Ana Rosa Biascochea, Unión de Trabajadores Petroquímicos, Hermandad de Empleados No Docentes Universidad de Puerto Rico, Unión Independiente de Trabajadores de Aeropuerto, Asociación Nacional de Empleados Públicos, Unión Independiente de Trabajadores de Servicios Legales.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

Vilma Santiago Irizarry, Río Piedras, P. R., José Antonio Lugo, New York City, Pedro Varela, Hato Rey, P. R., for movants.

David D. Buvinger, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Hato Rey, P. R., for government.

OPINION AND ORDER

PEREZ-GIMENEZ, District Judge.

Present before the Court is a motion for inspection, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2518(8)(d), and a memorandum in support thereof. Said motion was prompted by a notice of inventory from the United States Attorney in this district advising the persons and entities that appear in the title of the motion for inspection that the Court had authorized the interception of oral communications at the premises known as Calle Mayaguez 212, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. Movants now seek to inspect copies of the applications for orders pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2518, all orders relative thereto, all applications for extension of the time of service of the inventory required by 18 U.S.C. 2518(8)(d), and any orders relative thereto, and all records, documents, logs, transcripts, tapes, memoranda or other memorializations of the interception of any oral communications.

Disclosure is sought pursuant to 2518(8)(d), which provides:

"(d) Within a reasonable time but not later than ninety days after the filing of an application for an order of approval under section 2518(7b) which is denied or the termination of the period of an order or extensions thereof, the issuing or denying judge shall cause to be served, on the persons named in the order or the application, and such other parties to intercepted communications as the judge may determine in his discretion that is in the interest of justice, on inventory which shall include notice of (1) the fact of the entry of the order or the application, (2) the date of the entry and the period authorized, approved, or disapproved interception, or the denial of the application; and (3) the fact that during the period wire or oral communications were or were not interchanged."

The judge, upon the filing of a motion, may in his discretion, make available to such persons or his counsel for inspection such portions of the intercepted communications, applications and orders as the judge determines to be in the interest of justice. On an ex parte showing of good cause to a judge of competent jurisdiction the serving of the inventory required by this subsection may be postponed.

The government has filed a response in opposition to the motion for inspection, on July 21, 1982. On this same date the Government filed an ex parte memorandum in support of its ex parte submission for in camera inspection and an in camera affidavit. The Government opposes the motion on the basis that production of the material sought would hinder a pending grand jury investigation relative to the events and circumstances which led to the grant of the wiretap authorization orders. Movants filed on August 9, 1982, a reply to the Government's response.

In his affidavit in support of the motion for inspection, counsel for the movants alleges that "(u)pon information and belief, confidential attorney-client communications were indeed overheard and/or recorded, transcribed and memorialized..." and that access to the materials sought are "absolutely indispensable in order for movants to ascertain the nature and extent of any violation of their federal constitutional and/or statutory rights, privileges and immunities" in order to pursue the civil remedies provided for in 18 U.S.C. 2520.

After a careful review of the parties' arguments and a thorough in camera inspection of the Government's ex parte submission, as well as its review of the application and Order, the Court concludes that the importance of assuring that grand jury proceedings remain secret and free from prejudice outweighs movants' interest in discovering the degree to which the Government has intruded into their private affairs. All the material contained in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States v. Geller
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 6 Abril 1983
    ...jury investigation is not mandated. Application of the United States for An Order Authorizing The Interception of Oral Communications, 545 F.Supp. 1271, 1273 (D.P.R.1982); Application of The United States Authorizing The Interception of Wire Communications, 413 F.Supp. 1321, 1326-27 (E.D.Pa......
  • Application of U.S. for an Order Authorizing Interception of Oral Communications at the Premises Known as Calle Mayaguez 212, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, 82-1944
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 27 Diciembre 1983
    ...or standard promulgated pursuant thereto."2 The court's opinion is reported. Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing the Interception of Oral Communications, 545 F.Supp. 1271 (D.P.R.1982).3 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(8)(d) provides:"(d) Within a reasonable time but not later than......
  • Kaib v. Pennzoil Co., Civ. A. No. 81-2311.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 31 Agosto 1982
    ......Civ. A. No. 81-2311. United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. August 31, ...Marine Bank, 683 F.2d 744 (3d Cir. 1982). A written order" will follow.         ORDER OF COURT.        \xC2"......
  • a Warrant Authorizing the Interception of Oral Communications, Matter of, 82-1881
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 31 Mayo 1983
    ...F.2d 803, 808 (1st Cir.1974) (Sec. 2518(10)); Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing Interception of Oral Communications At the Premises Known as Calle Mayaguez 212, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, 545 F.Supp. 1271, 1273 (D.P.R.1982); Application of the United States for an Order ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT