APPLICATION OF US FOR AN ORDER, ETC., Misc. No. 330-I.

Decision Date22 August 1980
Docket NumberMisc. No. 330-I.
Citation495 F. Supp. 282
PartiesIn the Matter of the APPLICATION OF the UNITED STATES FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING INTERCEPTION OF WIRE AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

John Volz, U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., L. Eades Hogue, Atty. in Charge, U. S. Dept. Justice, John Voorhees, U. S. Dept. of Justice, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff.

Robert Kasanof and Bart M. Schwartz, New York City, Attys. for movant.

Dan Keefe of Charles N. Wooten, Ltd., Lafayette, La., for defendant.

CHARLES SCHWARTZ, Jr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a motion for inspection of an application and order authorizing interception of wire and oral communications and to inspect recordings and transcripts of intercepted communications. At the request of movant and the government all pleadings in connection with said motion have been sealed and the hearing on the motion was closed except to counsel for the parties and the Court's staff. Following oral argument the matter was submitted. Counsel for mover requested an opportunity to provide the Court with additional legal authority and has at this time done so. Now, after careful consideration of the record in this matter, the memoranda and oral argument of counsel, and the applicable law, it is the opinion of the Court, for the reasons hereinafter set out, that the motion should be and it is hereby DENIED.

Movant has received an inventory notice from the United States Attorney in this district pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(d) advising him that, with judicial authorization, certain of his wire and oral communications had been intercepted. Movant does not contest the sufficiency of the inventory notice itself, but, by means of the instant motion, seeks to inspect the application and accompanying affidavits filed by the United States in support of the surveillance, the Court's order authorizing same, and the recordings and transcripts of the intercepted communications to which movant was a party. Conceding that mover, who has neither been indicted nor called before a grand jury, is not entitled to invoke 18 U.S.C. § 2518(9) and (10)(a), 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(7)(b) 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, an 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 of 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 intercepted.
The judge, upon the filing of a motion, may in his discretion make available to such person 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.
Emphasis supplied.

The government opposes the motion on the basis that mover is not entitled to disclosure of the material sought and that such disclosure would severely compromise an ongoing grand jury investigation. In support of its contention with regard to the grand jury investigation, the government has filed ex parte an affidavit giving details of the investigation for the Court's in camera review.

Mover urges that merely being advised that there is an ongoing grand jury investigation is insufficient for purposes of allowing him to argue his case for disclosure and urges that an in camera inspection is not appropriate in this case. The government takes the position that such procedure is necessary in order to prevent intrusion upon the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings. We are of the opinion that in camera examinations are an appropriate means for resolving a conflict between the need of a party for evidence and the government's claim that disclosure is not in the interests of justice or public security. United States v. Brown, 539 F.2d 467, 470 (5th Cir., 1976); United States v. Buckley, 586 F.2d 498, 506 (5th Cir., 1978) cert. den'd, 440 U.S. 982, 99 S.Ct. 1792, 60 L.Ed.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States v. WARRANT AUTHORIZING, ETC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • August 12, 1981
    ...District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in the case of In the Matter of the Application For An Order Authorizing Interception of Wire and Oral Communications, a 1980 case reported in 495 F.Supp. 282 was presented with a somewhat analogous situation as evidenced in this The mova......
  • Application of U.S. for an Order Authorizing Interception of Oral Communications at the Premises Known as Calle Mayaguez 212, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • December 27, 1983
    ...708 F.2d at 28. See also In re Lochiatto, 497 F.2d 803 (1st Cir.1974); Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing Interception of Wire and Oral Communications, 495 F.Supp. 282 (E.D.La.1980); Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing Interception of Wire Commun......
  • US v. Yoshimura
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • August 17, 1993
    ...in the application and order may be redacted after in camera review. See Application of U.S. for an Order Authorizing Interception of Wire and Oral Communications, 495 F.Supp. 282, 284 (E.D.La.1980) (In proceeding on motion for inspection of application and order authorizing interception of......
  • APPLICATION OF UNITED STATES FOR AN ORDER, ETC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • August 31, 1982
    ...it would prejudice the Government in the ongoing jury investigation. See, e.g., Application of the U. S. for an Order Authorizing Interception of Wire and Oral Communications, 495 F.Supp. 282 (E.D.La., 1980); Application of the U. S. Authorizing Interception of Wire Communications, 413 F.Su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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