Edward Nathan Levine - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
          petitioner sold Logan 10 pounds of high-potency "Thai weed" on              
          consignment, for which Logan never paid petitioner.  Logan was in           
          jail at the time Customs made its offer to him.                             
               At trial, respondent introduced tape recordings of telephone           
          calls made on February 18, February 23, and February 24, 1987,              
          between Logan and petitioner.3                                              
               On these calls, Logan offered to sell petitioner a "4-digit            
          number, starts with a one" quantity of "T-shirts" in "2.2                   
          packages" for a price in the "mid-11s".  Petitioner has never               


               3At trial, petitioner objected to the introduction of the              
          recordings as evidence, because they were made without his                  
          knowledge or consent in violation of the law of the State of                
          California.                                                                 
               Title 18 U.S.C. sec. 2511 (1994) prohibits interception and            
          disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, except as           
          otherwise specifically provided.  Sec. 2511(2)(c) specifically              
          provides:                                                                   
               (c).  It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a                
               person acting under color of law to intercept a wire,                  
               oral, or electronic communication, where such a person                 
               is a party to the communication or one of the parties                  
               to the communication has given prior consent to such                   
               interception. [18 U.S.C. sec. 2511(2)(c) (West 1994).]                 
               The recordings in this case were made by the U.S. Customs              
          Service in connection with an official investigation of                     
          petitioner for drug trafficking, one of the parties in the                  
          telephone conversation, Logan, consented to the recordings, and             
          the recordings were offered as evidence in a Federal court.                 
               Accordingly, the recordings were lawful as consensual                  
          wiretaps and are admissible as evidence.  United States v. Kovac,           
          795 F.2d 1509, 1511-1512 (9th Cir. 1986) (whether the officials             
          complied with State law is not relevant; the only question is               
          whether the officials acted in compliance with Federal law);                
          United States v. Adams, 694 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1982) (evidence              
          obtained from a consensual wiretap conforming to 18 U.S.C. sec.             
          2511(2)(c) is admissible in Federal court without regard to State           
          law).                                                                       



Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011