Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Taglianetti v. United States

Taglianetti v. United States, 394 U.S. 316 (1969)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1969-03-24
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • explaining that the district court need not hold an adversary proceeding and provide full disclosure to determine the lawfulness of surveillance
  • approving in camera inspection of electronic surveillance tapes as not being violative of the defendant’s 4th Amendment rights of confrontation
  • determining that the Court does not require “an adversary proceeding and full disclosure for resolution of every issue raised by an electronic surveillance” and finding that, in that case, the task was not “too complex ... to rely wholly on the in camera judgment of the trial court”
  • surveillance records submitted to court for in camera determination of which records defendant was entitled to examine
  • task is not “too complex,” or “margin of error too great” to prohibit in camera judgment of trial court

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Taglianetti v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
194 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Criminal Law & Procedure — Wiretapping A defendant seeking to challenge electronic surveillance is entitled to disclosure of the transcripts of his own conversations, but has no right to examine the government's surveillance logs or records of conversations in which he was not a participant, as he lacks standing to challenge surveillance of others under the Fourth Amendment. 394 U.S. 316
  2. Criminal Law & Procedure — Wiretapping Neither Alderman v. United States nor related authorities require an adversary proceeding and full disclosure for the resolution of every issue raised by electronic surveillance; in camera review by the trial court may suffice where the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are adequately safeguarded by disclosure of the transcripts of his own conversations. 394 U.S. at 317
  3. Criminal Law & Procedure — Wiretapping Where the trial court examines the surveillance records in camera to identify only those instances of surveillance the defendant has standing to challenge and to verify the accuracy of the government's voice identifications, reliance on the in camera judgment of the trial court is permissible, and an adversary proceeding is not constitutionally required. 394 U.S. at 317-318
  4. Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction The 30-day time limitation on filing a petition for certiorari is not jurisdictional and does not bar the Court from exercising its discretion to consider a case notwithstanding an untimely filing. 394 U.S. at 316 n.1
Per Curiam.

The petition for certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. 1 Following a jury trial in the District Court, petitioner was convicted on three counts of wilfully attempting to evade his income tax for the years 1956, 1957, and 1958. Following a remand to the District Court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. In the District Court on *317 remand, the Government purported to turn over to petitioner all of his own conversations which had been overheard by means of unlawful electronic surveillance. 2 Petitioner argues that he was entitled to examine additional surveillance records because neither the Government nor the District Court was able to determine with certainty which conversations petitioner had been a party to. In fact, the District Court examined all the records in camera to ascertain if the Government had correctly identified petitioner’s voice and had turned over to petitioner each conversation in which he had participated.

Nothing in Alderman v. United States, Ivanov v. United States, or Butenko v. United States, ante, p. 165, requires an adversary proceeding and full disclosure for resolution of every issue raised by an electronic surveillance. On the contrary, an adversary proceeding and disclosure were required in those eases, not for lack of confidence in the integrity of government counsel or the trial judge, but only because the in camera procedures at issue there would have been an inadequate means to safeguard a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Here the defendant was entitled to see a transcript of his own conversations and nothing else. He had no right to rummage in government files. The trial court was asked to identify only those instances of surveillance which petitioner had standing to challenge under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and to double-check the accuracy of the Government’s voice identifications. Under the circumstances presented here, we can *318 not hold that “the task is too complex, and the margin for error too great, to rely wholly on the in camera judgment of the trial court.” Alderman v. United States, supra, at 182.

MR. Justice Black concurs in the result. Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or disposition of this case.
1

Although this petition for certiorari was not filed within the 30 days allowed by the Court’s Rule 22 (2), the time limitation is not jurisdictional, Heflin v. United States, 358 U. S. 415, 418, n. 7 (1959), and does not bar our exercise of discretion to consider this case.

2

Petitioner sought disclosure only of his own conversations and apparently lacks standing as to any others. “We do not understand appellant to argue that he has a right to inspect logs or memos of conversations in which he was not a participant. Indeed, that point he wisely conceded before the district court.” 398 F. 2d 568, 571.