United States v. Rahm, 0:20-cr-00232

Schlussler was indicted as the San Diego manager of Pacific Beach Readers Club in a nationwide telemarketing fraud conspiracy charging mail and wire fraud.
On Sept. 15, 2020, while Schlussler was in California, co‑defendant Jared Michelizzi (in Minnesota) called her with a government agent; Michelizzi consented to recording, Schlussler was not told the call was recorded. Parties stipulated to these facts.
Schlussler moved to suppress statements from the recorded call, arguing California law requires all‑party consent to recordings (Cal. Penal Code § 632.7; Kearney).
The Government argued federal law governs admissibility in federal prosecutions and permits one‑party consent (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c); Corona‑Chavez).
The magistrate judge held that federal law controls admissibility in federal criminal cases and that one‑party consent sufficed to authorize the recording, so suppression was not required. The recommendation: deny the motion to suppress.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statements recorded in California without all‑party consent must be suppressed because of California’s all‑party consent law	Federal law governs in federal prosecutions; one‑party consent to a recording is lawful and makes the recording admissible	California requires all parties’ consent to record; recording without it violated state privacy law and warrants suppression	Federal law controls; one‑party consent under federal statute authorized the recording; suppression denied

United States v. Corona‑Chavez, 328 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2003) (federal one‑party consent statute permits interception when a party consents)
United States v. Covos, 872 F.2d 805 (8th Cir. 1989) (evidence obtained without violating federal law is admissible in federal court despite state law violations)
United States v. Daniel, 667 F.2d 783 (9th Cir. 1982) (recording by confidential informant admissible in federal court despite contrary state law)
United States v. Adams, 694 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1982) (evidence from consensual wiretap conforming to federal statute is admissible without regard to state law)
Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660 (9th Cir. 2003) (evidence obtained in contravention of state law is admissible in federal court if no federal law was violated)
United States v. Cormier, 220 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2000) (violation of state law does not require suppression in federal court)
Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (Cal. 2006) (California Supreme Court recognizing state’s all‑party consent rule for recording private communications)