United States v. HOLLOWAY, 3:24-cr-00286

Terrance Tobias Tennille was indicted, along with seven co-defendants, for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, based on evidence gathered via DEA wire and electronic communications intercepts authorized under Title III.
The DEA’s investigation involved four separate wiretap authorizations, with Tennille only captured communicating with one co-defendant on one target telephone; the wiretap recordings were managed, sealed, and transported per DEA practice.
Tennille moved to suppress the intercepted communications, arguing the recordings were untimely sealed, had compromised integrity/possible tampering, and that the government delayed in producing Title III materials to him.
The government responded that Tennille had limited standing, that delays in sealing were due to logistical issues (shipping between offices, staff travel, FedEx delays, and pandemic impacts), and all necessary documents were eventually produced.
An evidentiary hearing was held, and both parties expanded their arguments, with Tennille being unable to provide expert evidence for his tampering claim.
The Magistrate Judge issued this report recommending denial of Tennille’s motion to suppress.

Issue	Tennille's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Standing to Challenge Wiretaps	Tennille had standing for all four authorizations.	Tennille lacked standing for taps where he was not intercepted.	Court assumes standing for all authorizations
Delay in Sealing Recordings	Delays (5-6 days) made recordings suppressible under Title III.	Delays explained/logistically justified and not prejudicial.	Explanation satisfied; not suppressible
Integrity/Tampering of Recordings	Poor quality indicated potential fabrication or tampering.	No evidence of tampering; process secured, seals intact.	No credible tampering evidence; claim fails
Production of Title III Documents	Delay in receiving documents warranted suppression.	All documents ultimately provided; argument mooted/remedied.	No basis for suppression

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (Fourth Amendment purpose)
Camara v. Mun. Ct. of City and Cnty. of S.F., 387 U.S. 523 (Fourth Amendment safeguards)
United States v. Goldstein, 989 F.3d 1178 (Title III subject to Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Ojeda Rios, 495 U.S. 257 (sealing and excusable delay standard under Title III)
United States v. Matthews, 431 F.3d 1296 (definition of "immediately" under Title III)
United States v. Stowers, 32 F.4th 1054 (framework for excusing sealing delays, factors considered)
United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900 (six-day delay allowed if explanation is satisfactory)
United States v. Scafidi, 564 F.2d 633 (attorney workload as excusable delay)