- 45 -
electronic surveillance, in violation of 18
U.S.C. �2518(1)(c). * * *
The Court of Appeals rejected Mr. London's position and
affirmed the District Court's denial of the suppression
motion. United States v. London, supra.
In Fleming v. United States, supra, the court
rejected the taxpayer's argument that the contents of the
intercepted communications should be suppressed under 18
U.S.C. section 2515 because the disclosure of the evidence
to revenue agents was not authorized by 18 U.S.C. section
2517. In view of ambiguities that the court found in 18
U.S.C. sections 2515 and 2517, the court interpreted the
statute in light of its purposes and found that no purpose
would be served by excluding lawfully seized evidence. See
Fleming v. United States, supra at 875. The court set
forth its holding as follows:
We hold only that evidence derived from
communications lawfully intercepted as part of
a bona fide criminal investigation that results
in the taxpayer's conviction may properly be
admitted in a civil tax proceeding, at least
when the evidence is already part of the public
record of the prior criminal prosecution. * * *
Similarly, we can see no purpose in suppressing, in this
civil tax proceeding, the contents of the intercepted
communications which were lawfully seized as part of a
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011