United States v. Goffer
756 F. Supp. 2d 588
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Wiretap authorized for Drimal’s cellular phone on November 15, 2007, covering two 30-day periods (Nov 16–Dec 15, 2007 and Dec 17, 2007–Jan 15, 2008).
- Minimization provision required termination of nonpertinent conversations and spot checks to ensure no criminal content was being intercepted.
- Supervising AUSA instructed monitors with minimization guidance, including handling privileged and personal spousal communications.
- Approximately 180 calls between Drimal and his wife were intercepted over 60 days, mostly personal and non-incriminating.
- Drimal argued spousal communications were privileged and improperly monitored; government sought to suppress only offending calls, not all wiretapped conversations.
- Court held that overall minimization was reasonable and denied Drimal’s suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether privilege waivers permit monitoring of spousal calls | Minimization applies; privilege preserved but monitored for relevance | Privileged spousal calls should not be intercepted absent probable cause | No per se bar; monitoring privileged calls permissible if reasonable under minimization standard |
| Whether the minimization of privileged calls was objective and reasonable | Government complied with minimization in most calls | Multiple egregious failures in minimizing certain calls | Overall minimization reasonable; isolated failures do not warrant total suppression |
| Remedy for minimization violations (total suppression vs. limited suppression) | Suppression of offending calls suffices | Total suppression warranted due to privacy intrusions | Total suppression not warranted; only offending calls suppressed; wiretap upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978) (objective reasonableness standard for minimization; fact-intensive inquiry)
- United States v. DePalma, 461 F. Supp. 800 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (minimization violations viewed in context; not per se warranting total suppression)
- United States v. Capra, 501 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974) (short calls may be exempt from minimization; duration matters)
- United States v. Orena, 883 F. Supp. 849 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (minimization violations weighed against scale of interception)
- United States v. Renzi, 722 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (D. Ariz. 2010) (extreme sanction of total suppression not warranted by similar conduct)