United States v. Lee, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11496

Lee, a U.S. citizen, was convicted of conspiring to distribute and import 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana based on evidence from both U.S. and Jamaican investigations.
Jamaican authorities, under a 2004 memorandum of understanding, assisted the U.S. (DEA) by monitoring phone conversations and providing wiretap data in narcotics investigations.
The Jamaican Vetted Unit intercepted Jamaican wire communications with authorization from Jamaica's Supreme Court; some conversations were used to obtain U.S. wiretap warrants and to present evidence to the grand jury.
Lee sought to suppress the Jamaican wiretap evidence on the theory that Jamaican officials acted as virtual agents of the DEA, relying on Maturo and related cases to argue agency interaction.
The district court found no agency relationship and denied suppression, and Lee also sought discovery of Jamaican wiretap applications, which the government could not obtain.
On appeal, the Second Circuit held that formal collaboration does not, by itself, create an agency relationship implicating the Fourth Amendment, and rejected discovery obligations for foreign materials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether foreign wiretaps are suppressible due to agency relationship	Lee contends Jamaican agents acted as DEA virtual agents.	U.S. and Jamaica collaboration does not create agency.	No agency; suppression denied.
Whether discovery of foreign wiretap applications is required	Lee seeks the Jamaican applications to prove agency/illegality.	Material not in possession; discovery not required here.	No obligation to disclose foreign materials; denial affirmed.
Sufficiency of the evidence and admissibility of expert testimony	Evidence insufficient; expert testimony improper under Rule 402/403.	Evidence sufficient; expert testimony appropriate.	Evidence sufficient; expert testimony admitted.

United States v. Maturo, 982 F.2d 57 (2d Cir. 1992) (foreign evidence may be excluded only in narrow circumstances)
United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708 (2d Cir. 1975) (foreign information need not be excluded solely due to noncompliance with domestic procedures)
United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1976) (exclusionary rule not applied to foreign government actions)
United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (Jencks Act and limited foreign materials in joint investigations)
United States v. Paternina-Vergara, 749 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1984) (good-faith efforts to obtain statements in possession of foreign government)
United States v. Valdivia, 680 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2012) (exclusionary rule does not generally apply to foreign searches)