42 N.Y.2d 41 (1977)
When executing a wiretap order, law enforcement must make a good-faith, reasonable effort to minimize the interception of communications unrelated to the crime under investigation, and a failure to even attempt minimization warrants total suppression of all intercepted conversations.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed the minimization requirement in wiretap orders. The police obtained an order to wiretap Miguel Brenes’ phone during a narcotics investigation but recorded all 743 calls over 20 days, including clearly irrelevant conversations with children and attorneys. The Court held that the failure to make any effort to minimize the interception of nonpertinent conversations required total suppression of all intercepted communications, emphasizing that authorities must make a good faith effort to avoid intercepting irrelevant conversations, especially where easily implemented procedures are available.
Facts
The New York City police obtained an eavesdropping order for Miguel Brenes’ phone as part of a narcotics investigation. The order named Brenes as the target and included a minimization directive. Police installed a tap on Brenes’ phone in his apartment. The tap operated continuously, 24 hours a day, for 20 days, recording all 743 conversations. Even conversations in Spanish were recorded and later translated. Numerous innocent calls involving children, attorneys, and other uninvolved parties were intercepted and recorded. The supervising Assistant District Attorney admitted to losing control of the case after the order was obtained.
Procedural History
Brenes was arrested and indicted for narcotics violations after the wiretap. He moved to suppress the intercepted conversations, derivative physical evidence, and inculpatory statements. The trial court denied the motion. Brenes pleaded guilty after the denial. The Appellate Division reversed, directing dismissal of the indictment, finding a “blatant” violation of the minimization requirements. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the police’s failure to attempt to minimize the interception of nonpertinent conversations during the execution of a wiretap order requires suppression of all intercepted conversations and evidence derived therefrom?
Holding
Yes, because the police made no attempt to minimize the interception of nonpertinent conversations, thereby violating the constitutional prohibition against general searches.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized the importance of minimizing the interception of nonpertinent communications during wiretaps, citing the need to protect individual rights and prevent general searches. The Court referenced People v. Floyd, stating that the People must show that “procedures were established to minimize interception of nonpertinent communications and that a conscientious effort was made to follow such procedures.” While total interception is not a per se violation, the inquiry must focus on whether practicable procedures could have been implemented to avoid intercepting innocent conversations. Here, the Court found that no procedures to limit interception were established or even attempted. The Court dismissed the argument that the difficulty of determining pertinence in a foreign language justified the neglect of any minimization effort, noting that Spanish-speaking officers could have been assigned to monitor the calls initially. The Court stated that the supervising attorney’s loss of “control” left the police officers without guidance. The Court distinguished between cases where minimization efforts fell short and cases where no attempt was made at all. The Court held that since the execution of the order completely disregarded statutory minimization requirements, total suppression was warranted. “[I]f minimization is to be carried out in good faith, police officers conducting interceptions must know what and how to minimize.”