People v. Gallina, 66 N.Y.2d 50 (1985)
Wiretap evidence is inadmissible if authorities fail to strictly comply with statutory requirements for obtaining extensions, inactivating devices, and sealing recordings.
Summary
This case addresses the level of adherence required to Criminal Procedure Law article 700 in wiretap investigations and the repercussions of non-compliance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision to suppress wiretap evidence due to inadequate compliance with statutory requirements. The court emphasized that applications for wiretap extensions must be made before the original warrant expires, eavesdropping devices must be fully inactivated during lapses in authority, and recordings must be promptly sealed. Failure to meet these requirements necessitates suppression of the evidence obtained.
Facts
Law enforcement obtained authorizations for multiple wiretaps during a heroin sales investigation at a meat market where the defendant worked. Wiretap three targeted two phones at the market. An extension was sought, resulting in wiretap four. After wiretap four ended, the equipment was turned off but remained in place, and the tapes were sealed with a delay. A further warrant led to wiretap five, followed by wiretap six. The tapes from wiretap six were also sealed with a delay. The delay in obtaining the extension for wiretap four was attributed to transcription and translation difficulties and a broken typewriter.
Procedural History
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the wiretap evidence, leading to his conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance. The Appellate Division reversed, granting the motion to suppress evidence from wiretaps two and five (and subsequent extensions), and ordered a new trial. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether an order extending a wiretap can be issued after the original wiretap order has expired?
2. Whether merely turning off an eavesdropping device satisfies the statutory requirement of permanent inactivation during a lapse in wiretapping authority?
3. Whether evidence obtained from a wiretap is admissible when the application for that wiretap was preceded by violations of the extension and inactivation provisions of the eavesdropping statutes?
4. Whether a delay of almost two full business days in sealing wiretap recordings is excusable under CPL 700.50(2)?
Holding
1. No, because CPL 700.40 requires that an application for an extension order be made prior to the expiration of the original eavesdropping warrant.
2. No, because permanent inactivation requires steps that would cut off the possibility of listening in on communications to or from the tapped premises, and simply turning off the equipment does not meet this standard.
3. No, because the warrant authorizing the later wiretap depended on information obtained from the earlier wiretap which was the result of a direct violation of the extension application and inactivation statutes.
4. No, because a delay of that length requires a satisfactory explanation, and inadequate police procedures do not constitute a valid excuse.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the clear language of CPL 700.40 mandates that extension applications be made before the original warrant’s expiration. The Court rejected the People’s argument to treat the extension application as a new, original application, emphasizing that this would circumvent the notice requirements of CPL 700.50(3). The Court also found that merely turning off the eavesdropping equipment did not satisfy the requirement of permanent inactivation, as it did not eliminate the potential for unauthorized eavesdropping. Regarding the admissibility of evidence from wiretap six, the Court found that the warrant authorizing it depended on information from wiretap five, which was obtained in violation of the extension and inactivation statutes. The Court emphasized that the extension and inactivation requirements reflect a policy of limiting the use of eavesdropping devices. Finally, the Court held that the delay in sealing the tapes violated CPL 700.50(2), as the People failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court cited People v. Basilicato, 64 NY2d 103, 116 stating that “because of the potential for abuse, it is the People who must provide a satisfactory explanation for untimely sealing.”