In re Order Authorizing Installation of Pen Reg.
Decision Date | 14 March 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 94-3-CR-MISC-T-23.,94-3-CR-MISC-T-23. |
Citation | 846 F. Supp. 1555 |
Parties | In re Application of the UNITED STATES of America FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF A PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICE. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Kathy Peluso, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tampa, FL, for plaintiff.
The magistrate judge has twice denied the United States' application for an order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register and trap and trace device.1 The latter of the two applications, a somewhat supplemented edition of the earlier application, states in part that:
The magistrate judge premised his denial on the failure of the United States to advance a "factual demonstration that the pen register is likely to disclose information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation that has a nexus to the Middle District of Florida." (The magistrate judge's opinion is attached as Exhibit A.) The magistrate judge determined that the statute governing the installation and use of pen registers requires a demonstration of qualifying facts sufficient to establish the correctness of both the United States' assertion of this court's jurisdiction and the pen register's purpose and probable results, i.e., the discovery of information beneficial to an investigation with a nexus to the Middle District of Florida. Asserting energetically that the pen register statute envisions only perfunctory judicial involvement, the United States appeals to the district court. The magistrate judge's order is REVERSED because the application of the United States satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute.
In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979), a robbery victim received threatening telephone calls after describing to police the automobile she believed the robbers had driven. The telephone company honored a warrantless and judicially unapproved request from the police to install a pen register to record telephone numbers called from the telephone at the home of a suspect. The pen register recorded a call to the robbery victim, on the strength of which law enforcement procured a warrant, effected a search of the suspect's residence, and arrested the suspect, who was identified in a line-up.
After the suspect's conviction, he sought review of the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress both the pen register results and other incriminating, derivative evidence. Maryland's appellate court affirmed both the conviction and the trial court's denial of the suppression motion. Citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), as the principally controlling precedent and affirming Maryland's decision, the Supreme Court expounded the regnant considerations:
442 U.S. at 739-46, 99 S.Ct. at 2580-83, 61 L.Ed.2d at 230. See also United States v. Diaz-Lizaraza, 981 F.2d 1216, 1223 (11th Cir.1993) ( ); United States v. Thompson, 936 F.2d 1249, 1250 (11th Cir.1991) ( ).
Smith compels the conclusion that (absent some presently unforeseen, aggravating circumstance) no constitutionally cognizable issues inhere in law enforcement's resort to a pen register. The result in Smith is as definitive as the result in a case at common law is likely to be. The Supreme Court has ruled dispositively. Orderliness requires good faith compliance from the lower courts. While the possibility exists that some fair-minded and reasonable jurists remain uneasy about the result in Smith, the nature of finality in cases presenting litigable constitutional issues precludes further debate about the effect of Smith (. )3
In 1986, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. §§ 3121-27, which governs pen registers.4 Section 3121(a) provides, with a few irrelevant exceptions, that "no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title or under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.)."...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Potts
...1134, 1146 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (statute does not "requir[e] a factual basis for the certification"); In re Application of the United States of America , 846 F. Supp. 1555, 1559 (M.D. Fla. 1994) ("No provision appears for independent judicial inquiry ***."). ¶ 148 Rather, the "extremely limited......
-
U.S. v. Fregoso, s. 94-2959
...Cir.1990) (outlining limited judicial role in approving pen registers and trap and trace devices); In re Order Authorizing Installation of Pen Reg., 846 F.Supp. 1555, 1558-59 (M.D.Fla.1994) (court's role with respect to trap and trace devices limited to confirming: (1) identity of applicant......
- People v. Potts
- People v. Potts