|
|
United States v. Ojeda Rios, 495 U.S. 257 (1990)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States v. Ojeda Rios, 495 U.S. 257 (1990)
Justice STEVENS, with whom Justice BRENNAN and Justice MARSHALL join, dissenting.
The failure to comply with the sealing requirements of Title III was the unfortunate consequence of a Government lawyer’s good faith, but incorrect, understanding of the law. Whether such a mistake should constitute a "satisfactory explanation" for the failure is, as both the District Court and the Court of Appeals recognized, a close question. Both of those courts resolved their doubts in favor of requiring strict compliance with a statute that was carefully drawn to protect extremely sensitive privacy interests. I think their resolution of the issue was correct.{1}
The ordinary citizen is often charged with presumptive knowledge of laws even when they are complex and confusing. A similar presumption should apply to a federal prosecutor responsible for insuring that a prolonged and extensive program of electronic surveillance is conducted in compliance with the law. Moreover, when issues turn on the details of such an investigation -- in this case involving 1,011 tapes made pursuant to 8 separate orders and 17 extensions -- I believe we should give special deference to the consistent evaluations of the record by the District Court and the Court of Appeals. Chief Judge Oakes succinctly stated the concern that is decisive for me:
We think that unfortunately the failure to seal the Levittown tapes here resulted from a disregard of the sensitive nature of the activities undertaken. The danger here is, of course, that today’s dereliction becomes tomorrow’s conscious avoidance of the requirements of law. The privacy and other interests affected by the electronic surveillance statutes are sufficiently important, we believe, to hold the Government to a reasonably high standard of at least acquaintance with the requirements of law.
875 F.2d 17, 23 (CA2 1989).{2}
Accordingly, while I agree with the Court’s rejection of the Government’s construction of Section 2518(8)(a), I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.{3}
Contents:
Chicago: John Paul Stevens, "Stevens, J., Dissenting," United States v. Ojeda Rios, 495 U.S. 257 (1990) in 495 U.S. 257 495 U.S. 269–495 U.S. 270. Original Sources, accessed October 10, 2024, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DMWQAJ63P2F622Y.
MLA: Stevens, John Paul. "Stevens, J., Dissenting." United States v. Ojeda Rios, 495 U.S. 257 (1990), in 495 U.S. 257, pp. 495 U.S. 269–495 U.S. 270. Original Sources. 10 Oct. 2024. http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DMWQAJ63P2F622Y.
Harvard: Stevens, JP, 'Stevens, J., Dissenting' in United States v. Ojeda Rios, 495 U.S. 257 (1990). cited in 1990, 495 U.S. 257, pp.495 U.S. 269–495 U.S. 270. Original Sources, retrieved 10 October 2024, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DMWQAJ63P2F622Y.
|