U.S. v. Collins

In prosecution on drug-related charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress wiretap evidence, even though defendant argued that government had failed to properly seal certain recordings arising out of wiretaps associated with phones of defendant and other individuals. With respect to first motion to suppress, Dist. Ct. could properly deny said motion, where government had agreed not to use any unsealed recordings from two phones at issue with said wiretap. With respect to second motion to suppress that pertained to three phones, Ct. of Appeals found that: (1) government had agreed not to use recordings from one phone; and (2) wiretap applications for remaining two phones did not rely on unsealed recordings from first phone. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly conclude that failure to properly seal one phone was product of innocent mechanical error that did not suggest that government had tampered with said phone.