U.S. v. Gotti

• Decision Date: 16 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98 CR 42(BDP).,98 CR 42(BDP).
• Citation: U.S. v. Gotti, 42 F.Supp.2d 252 (S.D. N.Y. 1999)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, v. John A. GOTTI, Dominick Loiacono, Vincent Zollo, Anthony Plomitallo, Michael Zambouros, and Dennis McClain, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

42 F.Supp.2d 252

UNITED STATES of America, v.John A. GOTTI, Dominick Loiacono, Vincent Zollo, Anthony Plomitallo, Michael Zambouros, and Dennis McClain, Defendants.

No. 98 CR 42(BDP).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

March 16, 1999.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Andrew McCarthy, A.U.S.A., Carol Sipperly, A.U.S.A., Marjorie Miller, A.U.S.A., U.S. Attorney's Office, White Plains, NY, for U.S.A.

Gerald Shargell, Sarita Kedia, New York City, Bruce Cutler, New York City, for defendantJohn A. Gotti, Jr.

Barry M. Fallick, Rochman Platzer Fallick & Sternheim, New York City, for defendantDominick Loiacono.

Robert P. Leighton, Leighton, Leighton & Leighton, New York City, for defendantVincent Zollo.

Richard A. Rehbock, Jericho, NY, for defendantAnthony Plomitallo.

Barry E. Schulman, Brooklyn, NY, for defendantMichael Zambouros.

Dominick Porco, Scarsdale, NY, for defendantDennis McClain.

OPINION AND ORDER

BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Jr., District Judge.

Currently before this Court are the omnibus pretrial motions of defendantsJohn A. Gotti, Dominick Loiacono, Vincent Zollo, Anthony Plomitallo, Michael Zambouros, and Dennis McClain who are charged in various counts of the Indictment with, inter alia, racketeering, conspiracy, extortion, wire fraud, extortion in telecommunications and gambling.

In these motions which, in large part, challenge various aspects of the investigations that culminated in the indictments, the defendants seek to suppress evidence allegedly obtained as the result of illegal electronic surveillance, invalid warrants, and unconstitutional searches.In addition, defendants challenge the sufficiency of the Indictment in a number of respects and seek discovery beyond what has already been provided by the Government.What follows is this Court's resolution of the motions.

I.SUPPRESSION OF WIRETAP EVIDENCE BASED ON LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE¹

DefendantJohn A. Gotti seeks suppression of the fruits of electronic surveillance conducted at various times in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 by state law enforcement officials acting pursuant to authorizations from New York courts.Specifically, Gotti challenges electronic interceptions of conversations (1) over a telephone at City Auto Salvage ("City Auto"), (2) over his home and office telephones, (3) over co-defendantAnthony Plomitallo's home telephone, (4) within vehicles operated by Plomitallo and Anthony Amoroso, and (5) in Gotti's office at 97-11 Sutphin Boulevard, Queens, New York.Gotti contends that suppression of the fruits of these interceptions is warranted because the applications submitted to obtain the authorizations contained insufficient averments of probable cause and insufficient showings that the premises were used for criminal activities.Co-defendant Plomitallo joins Gotti's motion with respect to his and Gotti's home telephone numbers, and the telephone at the Sutphin Boulevard location.Plomitallo's standing to join in Gotti's challenge is not contested by the Government.

The following are the various eavesdropping authorizations which Gotti contends were issued without probable cause:²

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  DATE AUTHORIZED BY SUBJECT OF SUPPORTING
                AUTHORIZATION AFFIDAVIT
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  December 20, 1995      Honorable Sondra              Authorization of interception   Special
                                         Miller, Appellate Division,   of telephone                    Investigator
                                         Second                        conversations                   Pasquale
                                         Department                    at City Auto Salvage            Perrotta
                                                                       relating to
                                                                       gambling
                  January 18, 1996       Justice Miller                Extension and                   Special
                                                                       amendment to include            Investigator
                                                                       interception of                 Ercole
                                                                       conversations relating          Gaudioso
                                                                       to criminal usury
                                                                       coercion, grand
                                                                       larceny by extortion
                                                                       and conspiracy
                  February 15, 1996      Justice Miller                Extension                       Special
                                                                                                       Investigator
                                                                                                       Gaudioso
                  March 14, 1996         Justice Miller                Extension                       Special
                                                                                                       Investigator
                                                                                                       Gaudioso
                  April 25, 1996         Justice Miller                Amendment to authorize          Special
                                                                       interception                    Investigator
                                                                       of conversations                Gaudioso
                                                                       over Plomitallo's
                                                                       home telephone and
                                                                       within a 1987
                                                                       Mercury
                

  May 10, 1996           Justice Miller                Extension and                   Special
                                                                       amendment to discontinue        Investigator
                                                                       continue interception           Gaudioso
                                                                       within 1987
                                                                       Mercury
                  May 17, 1996           Justice Miller                Amendment to authorize          Special
                                                                       interception                    Investigator
                                                                       within 1987                     Gaudioso
                                                                       Mercury
                  June 6, 1996           Justice Miller                Extension and                   Special
                                                                       amendment to authorize          Investigator
                                                                       interception                    Gaudioso
                                                                       of conversations
                                                                       over Gotti's home
                                                                       telephone and within
                                                                       a 1996 Jeep
                  June 26, 1996          Justice Miller                Amendment to authorize          Special
                                                                       interception                    Investigator
                                                                       of telephone at                 Gaudioso
                                                                       Sutphin Boulevard
                  July 3, 1996           Justice Miller                Extension and                   Special
                                                                       amendment to authorize          Investigator
                                                                       interception                    Gaudioso
                                                                       of telephone at
                                                                       Sutphin Boulevard
                

DISCUSSION

18 U.S.C. § 2518 sets out the procedures governing the authorization of wiretaps.Section 2518(3) requires a judicial determination that: (1) there is probable cause to believe that a particular type of crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, (2) there is probable cause to believe that particular communications concerning the crime will be obtained through the wiretapping, (3) normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed or unfeasible, and (4) there is probable cause to believe that the phones to be tapped are being used for criminal purposes or by the target of the wiretap.18 U.S.C. § 2518(3);United States v. Wagner,989 F.2d 69, 71(2d Cir.1993);United States v. Ambrosio,898 F.Supp. 177, 180(S.D.N.Y.1995).

Probable cause to authorize a wiretap "is established if the `totality of the circumstances' contained in the affidavit indicates a probability of criminal activity and that evidence of the criminal activity could be obtained through the use of electronic surveillance."<sup>3</sup>Ambrosio,898 F.Supp. at 181.The issuing judicial officer must "make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the `veracity' and `basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, there is fair probability that ... evidence of a crime will be found."Gates,462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317.

Orders authorizing the interception of wire communications are entitled to a presumption of validity.Therefore, substantial deference is afforded the issuing judicial officer's determination of probable cause, Ambrosio,898 F.Supp. at 181(citations omitted), and doubts as to the existence of probable cause must be resolved in favor of the prior judicial authorization.Gates,462 U.S. at 237 n. 10, 103 S.Ct. 2317.Consequently, this Court's review is not de novo but is...