UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | ) | |
| ) | ||
| ) | ||
|
) | No. 93 CR 523 |
| ) | Judge Wayne R. Andersen | |
| ) | ||
| JOSEPH FRANK LaMANTIA, et al. | ) |
GOVERNMENT'S CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS,MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, PROVIDE FOR A MINIMIZATION HEARING, AND DISMISS THE INDICTMENT
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, JAMES B. BURNS, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, moves this Court to deny defendant LaMantia's motion to suppress evidence obtained directly and derivatively under authority of properly issued and narrowly utilized covert interception orders; deny his motion for a minimization hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 2518 (1996); and deny his motion to dismiss the indictment. The government further asks that defendants Scalfaro, Gallo and Levato's individual motions be similarly denied.
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | ||
| I. | OVERVIEW | 3 |
| II. | STANDING OF GALLO, SCALFARO AND LEVATO/LOCAL CRIMINAL RULE 205(c) . . . . | 6 |
| A. | Joseph Gallo | 6 |
| B. | Gino Levato and Dominic Scalfaro | 8 |
| III. | JOSEPH FRANK LAMANTIA | 8 |
| A. | The Government had Probable Cause to Believe that the Defendant LaMantia was Engaged in Criminal | 9 |
1
2
I. OVERVIEW
On, July 3, 1996, defendant Joseph Frank LaMantia filed a motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the indictment. The motion was filed seeking suppression of evidence obtained as a result of several separate court ordered interceptions of wire and oral communications. In his motion to suppress evidence and the attached memorandum of law, defendant LaMantia raises five allegations: (1) the affidavit for the interception of wire communications at the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club ("Club") failed to establish probable cause; (2) the affidavit for the initial interception of oral communications at the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club failed to establish probable cause; (3) the microphone interception at the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club lasted longer than necessary to achieve the authorized objective in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2518 (5);
3
(4) interception at the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club and Gino's Tavern (with respect to Joseph Frank LaMantia)1 violated minimization requirements, and (5) suppression is required due to lack of necessity for interception2
On July 16, 1996, Joseph Gallo and Gino Levato filed separate motions to join defendant LaMantia's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the indictment3. In defendant Levato's three
1
Defendant LaMantia's motion specifically states that this argument is raised with respect to LaMantia only.2
Defendant LaMantia's motion does not challenge the findings of probable cause for the December 21, 1987, or February 5, 1988, affidavits for extensions on the November 4, 1987, Old Neighborhood Italian American Club oral communications interception order. Furthermore, other than a general argument attacking the finding of necessity for the eleven interception orders and extensions, no arguments are made against the court ordered wire communications interceptions conducted at Sea Hoy Seafoods. With respect to the interceptions conducted at Gino's Tavern, the only other argument raised is that with respect to defendant LaMantia, proper minimization was not carried out. The government submits that any other issues related to the court ordered interceptions conducted at the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club, Sea Hoy Seafoods and Gino's Tavern that were not argued in defendant LaMantia's motion have been waived under 18 U.S.C. 2518 Section (l0)(a) which states that all motions to suppress shall be made before trial, hearing or proceeding unless there was no opportunity to make such a motion or the person was not aware of the grounds of the motion. Furthermore, the government submits that those issues not raised in defendant LaMantia's motion are waived under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12 (f) which states that failure by a party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial. Shall constitute a waiver thereof. See e.g. United States v. Morales. 964 F.2d 677, 680 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. DeLuna ,616 F.Supp. 534, 536 (W.D. Mo. 1985).3
The government had provided all information related to the Title III orders to counsel for Gallo, Levato, LaMantia and Scalfaro in the Fall of 1993. The government met with defense counsel for all the defendants in this matter on August 10, 1993 and provided to them all applications, affidavits, interception orders, service provider orders, reports to the Court, motion to seal recordings and logs, sealing orders, motions to delay service of inventory and related orders, daily interception logs, petition for authority to remove oral interception devices and related order, motion for service of inventory and related orders, all dealing with the interceptions for the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club, Sea Hoy Seafoods and Gino's Tavern. These were the first documents provided in the case and totaled 7,154 pages in number. By December 17, 1993 the counsel for the various defendants had been provided rough transcripts or summaries of all pertinent conversations. Defense counsel were provided tape cassettes of all pertinent conversations. Some were provided on August 23, 1993, and most of the remaining tapes were provided on October 8, 1993.4
page motion to join, the only discernible argument made is that the government failed to attempt minimization and sought interception of a public telephone. Defendant Levato cites no authority, lists no facts which are specific to his case and refers to no language in the applications to support his argument. In defendant Gallo's three page motion to join, Gallo raises three allegations for suppression: microphone coverage lasted longer than necessary to achieve authorized objectives, agents failed to minimize oral communications, and the affidavits failed to establish necessity. Defendant Gallo cites no authority except the statute itself, nor any language in the applications to support his allegations and does not list any facts which are specific to his case. Also, he fails to specify which affidavits he is challenging.
On July 25, 1996, defendant Scalfaro filed a one page motion to join defendant LaMantia's motion to suppress evidence and to dismiss the indictment. In his motion defendant Scalfaro raises no arguments, cites no authority or language in the applications and lists no facts specific to his case.
Each of the above defendants' motions to join for suppression of evidence and dismissal relies entirely on the issues raised and arguments made in defendant LaMantia's motion. For the reasons set forth below, this Court should deny all
________________________
4 No oral communications
of defendant Gallo were intercepted at Gino's Tavern. Only defendant Gallo's wire
communications were intercepted and those wire communications were all criminal in
nature. Thus, defendant Gallo's challenge to "microphone coverage" and an
allegation of the agents failing to minimize "oral communications" is misplaced
as none of defendant Gallo's oral communications were ever intercepted
5
the defendants' motions.
II. STANDING OF
GALLO, SCALFARO AND LEVATO/LOCAL CRIMINAL RULE
205(c)
Defendant Gallo was not a named party in the applications for interceptions at the "Club", Gino's Tavern or Sea Hoy Seafood. He was not a participant in any conversation recorded as a result of the court ordered interceptions conducted at the "Club" or at SeaHoy. Thus, defendant Gallo is not an "aggrieved party" as defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 2510(11) for purposes relating to interceptions conducted at the "Club" or Sea Hoy Seafoods. As a result, he lacks standing to join defendant LaMantia's arguments concerning court ordered interceptions at the "Club" and the necessity for the interceptions conducted at Sea Hoy Seafoods5.
Although defendant Gallo does have standing to argue issues related to the wire interceptions conducted at Gino's Tavern, most of his motion deals with a challenge to the interception of oral communications to which he was not a participant. In addition, he fails to sufficiently raise such arguments as required by Local Criminal Rule 2.05(c) which requires the proponent of a contested motion to submit an accompanying brief in support of the motion, together with citations of authority. His motion to join contains blanket and conclusory allegations
________________
5 Lamantia's arguments 1,2,3,4 (b), and 5 as it relates to the Club and
Sea Hoy Seafoods
6
and does not list any facts specific enough to allow a response. Furthermore, defendant LaMantia's motion to suppress cannot satisfy the requirements of Local Criminal Rule 2.05 for defendant Gallo because the cited facts and argument related to interceptions conducted at Gino's Tavern pertain specifically to defendant LaMantia and no one else. See e.g. United States v McCarroll. 1996 WL 99442, *3 (N.D. Ill. March 5, 1996); see also United States v. Reynolds. 1988 WL 31562 *3 n.2 ( N.D. Ill. 1988) As the court stated in Reynolds:
The defendant is responsible for presenting a complete argument. Local Criminal Rule 2.05(c) reflects this responsibility. . . . The Court will not undertake the defendant's obligation to articulate such an argument.
Thus, defendant Gallo's motion to join should be denied.
B. Gino Levato and Dominic Scalfaro
The motions to join filed by both defendants' Levato and Scalfaro suffer from the same infirmities as defendant Gallo's. Neither defendant had conversations recorded as a result of the interception orders for the "Club" and both defendants were recorded as a result of the Sea Hoy Seafood interception orders in the same minimal fashion an Gallo6. As a result, neither have standing to join LaMantia's arguments against the interceptions conducted at the "Club" and Sea Hoy Seafood.
Although defendants Scalfaro and Levato have standing to
_______________
6 Their participation consisted of answering calls that came into Gino's tavern which
emanated from Sea Hoy Seafoods. The caller from Sea Hoy Seafoods would then ask to speak
with some specofice individual and they would hand the telephone to that individual.
7
challenge the interceptions conducted at Gino's Tavern, neither defendant Scalfaro's one page motion nor defendant Levato's three page motion list facts specific to their cases, which is necessary to support a valid motion. Furthermore, joinder with defendant LaMantia's motion would violate Local Criminal Rule 2.05(c)because defendant LaMantia's motion contain facts and arguments related to the interception conducted at Gino's Tavern that are specific only to LaMantia.
1. Standard of Review:
The burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the illegality of the wiretaps by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Van Horn. 579 F.Supp. 804, 811 (D. Neb.1984) (citing Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 388, 341); see also, United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 486 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 439 U.S. 870, 99 S.Ct. 200, 58 L.Ed.2d 182 (1978) (The burden is on the movant to make specific factual allegations of illegality, to produce evidence, and to persuade the Court that the evidence should be suppressed). Affidavits in support of electronic orders are to be judged by the same standards as conventional search warrants; the statutory probable cause standards set out in Title III are co-extensive with the constitutional requirements embodied in the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Macklin. 902 F.2d 1320, 1324 (8th Cir.1990),
8
cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1031, 111 S.Ct. 689, 112 L.Ed.2d 680 (1991). It is well established that the affidavit used to support the issuance of the wiretap order is presumed valid. Van Horn, 579 F. Supp. at 811 (citing Franks v. Delaware. 438 U.S. 154, 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2684, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)). The question presented on review of an issuing judicial officer's determination is not whether the reviewing court would have issued the warrant based on the affidavit as presented, but whether the court which did issue the warrant had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Illinois v. Gates 462 U.S. 213, at 238-239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983). A reviewing court does not conduct a de nova review of the issuing judge's determination, but must instead afford it great deference. Id. at 236, 103 S.Ct. at 2331 See Macklin, 902 F.2d at 1324 (8th Cir.1990); Woods v. United States, 498 U.S. 1031, 11 S.Ct. 689, 112 L.Ed.2d 680 (1991). As the Court explained in Gates:
We have repeatedly said that after-the-fact scrutiny by courts of the sufficiency of an affidavit should not take the form of de nova review. A magistrate's determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts." [Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410,419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 590, 21 L.Ed:2d 637 (1969)] " a grudging or negative attitude toward warrants," [United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 745-46, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 1965).,] is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment's strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant; courts should not invalidate warrants by interpreting affidavits in a hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense, manner." Id., at 109, 85 S.Ct. at 746.
Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 103 S.Ct. at 2331.
9
Probable cause is a reasonable probability of criminal activity; it does not require certainty or a prima facie showing of criminal activity. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 590, 21 L.Ed. 2d 637 (1969); United States v. Giacalone, 853 F.2d 470, 4478 (6th Cir. 1988); United States V. Dorfman, 542 F.Supp. 345, 359. Even if there is a possibly innocent explanation, as long as there is a reasonable probability that there is criminal activity afoot, despite the presence of other possibilities, probable cause is present. See. e.g.. United States v. Davis. 882 F.2d 1334, 4343 (8th Cir. 1989); United States v. Anton, 633 F.2d 1252, 1254 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1084, 101 S.Ct. 870, 66 L.Ed. 808 (1981); Dorfman, 542 F. Supp. at 359.
Probable cause is not a concept that can be applied swiftly and technically according to set factual guidelines. Rather it is "a fluid concept--turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts--not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules." Gates, 462 U.s. at 232; United States v. Mancari, 663 F.Supp. 1343, 1354(N.D.Ill. 1987). Therefore, probable cause must be based on the totality of the circumstances. Gates, 462 U.S. at 230-32; Mancari, 663 F. Supp. at 1354; United States v. Orozco. 630 F.Supp. 1418, 1523 (S.D. Cal. 1986).Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2518 codified the probable cause requirement for interceptions. The statute requires the
10
government to meet a three-tiered probable cause standard. Under the statute, the government must show that:
(a)there is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in Section 2516 of this chapter; (b) there is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception;
****************************************
(d) there is probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or place where communications are to be intercepted are being used , or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of such offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by such person.
18 U.S.C. Section 2518(3), (a), (b), (d), (1976).
An affidavit filed in support of a wiretap application must contain sufficient underlying facts so that the issuing judge can make an independent determination as to the existence of probable cause. Dorfman, 542 F. Supp. at 361., aff'd United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594 (7th Cir. 1984). An affidavit submitted in support of a wiretap application must be read in a commonsense and realistic manner without inordinate attention to overly technical details. Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 415; In Re DeMonte, 674F.2d 1169, 1173 (7th Cir. 1982); United States v. Kirk, 534 F1262, 1274 (8th Cir. 1976). The affidavit must be assessed in its totality and a reviewing court should not "undertake a piecemeal dismemberment of the various paragraphs of the affidavit without attention to its force as a whole." United States v. Leisure. 844 F.2d 1347, 1354 (8th Cir. 1988).
Pen registers have been widely accepted by courts as a
11
proper and significant means to aid in establishing probable cause for electronic surveillance of telephones. See e.g., United States v. Young. 877 F.2d 1099, 1103 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Danovaro. 877 F.2d 583, 585 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Gonzalez. 866 F.2d 781, 787(5th Cir. 1989); Leisure. at 1355; United States v. Tehfe, 772 F.2d 1114 (3d Cir. 1983); United States v. Todisco. 667 F.2d 255, 258 (2d Cir.1981). When an individual is known to be engaging in ongoing criminal conduct and a pen register discloses numerous calls between that individual and others also known to be engaging in criminal conduct, the balance weighs heavily in favor of a probable cause finding that a wiretap may disclose criminal evidence. Gonzalez at 787; Tehfe, 772 F.2d at 1118-19; Todisco, 667 F.2d at 258; United States v. Errera, 616 F.Supp. 1145, 1150 ( D. Md. 1985).
Probable cause must exist at the time the issuing judge enters the interception order and the affiant must demonstrate that the information is not stale. Dorfman, 542 F. Supp. at 362. There are no hard and fast rules on staleness. It can only be judged by reference to the particular type of criminal activity. "Thus, when the affidavit recites ongoing criminal activity of a type likely to continue over a substantial period of time, the timeliness of the information in the affidavit is less important." Dorfman, 542 F. Supp. at 362. See United States v. Ozar 50 F.3d 1440 (Continuing nature of suspected bank fraud activity provided substantial basis for issuing judge's finding of probable cause to believe evidence of ongoing criminal bank
12
fraud activity would be uncovered by electronic surveillance of meetings among defendants, even if good deal of activity discussed in FBI agent's affidavit occurred at least five years ago.) The passage of time is less significant when there is cause to suspect continuing criminal activity. Ozar, 50 F.3d at 1446, citing United States v. Tallman. 952 F.2d 164, 166 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 961, 112 S.Ct. 2319, 119 L.Ed. 2d 237 (1992); and United States v. Jones, 801 F.2d 304, 314 (8th Cir.1986).
The issuing judge is entitled to exercise considerable judgment as to whether the facts alleged in the affidavit are sufficient to constitute probable cause and the determination made by the issuing judge that probable cause exists will be entitled to substantial deference from a reviewing court. United States v: Kupper. 693 F.2d 1129, 1133 (5th Cir. 1982); Mancari, 663 F. Supp. at 1354; Dorfman, 542 F. Supp. at 361.
On September 2, 1987, the government applied for and received authorization to intercept telephone calls of Angelo LaPietra, James LaPietra, Joseph Frank LaMantia (also known as "Shorty"), Frank Caruso (also known as "Toots" and Tootsie Babe"), and others then unknown who comprised the leadership of an organization referred to as the "Southside Group", "26th Street Crew" and/or Southside/Chinatown Crew" and which organization was part of a larger organization known as the "Chicago Outfit", with James LaPietra functioning as the leader
13
of the "26th Street Crew", and Frank Caruso, Joseph Frank LaMantia and Frank Calabrese ( also known as "Frankie C") serving as his main assistants. The intercept was authorized for the telephone subscribed to by the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club, located at 266/268 West 26th Street, Chicago , Illinois. The target offenses were a RICO conspiracy and substantive RICO violation involving conducting and participating in an "association-in-fact" enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity and the collection of unlawful debts and conspiring to do so in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c) and (d). The pattern of racketeering activity also consisted of the extortionate collection of street tax, 18 U.S.C. Section 1951; the operation and management of an illegal gambling business, 18 U.S.C. Section 1955 (a); threatening and/or inflicting of physical or property injury in violation of the intimidation laws of the State of Illinois, Chapter 38, Illinois Revised Statutes, Section 12-6; and making extortionate extensions and collections of credit in violation of Title 18, Sections 892 and 894 respectively.
The defendant contends that the probable cause for this order was insufficient. Probable cause in the affidavit was based upon information provided by eight(8) named individuals, fourteen (14) confidential informants, and pen register and telephone information and physical surveillances in a one hundred and fifty-three (153) page affidavit that contained information gathered from an multi-year investigation. The affidavit
14
provided probable cause to establish:
1) the long standing existence of the Chicago criminal organization known as the "Outfit";
2) the long standing existence of the "Southside Group" and/or "26th Street Crew" as part of this Chicago crime organization;
3) the long standing membership of each of the named interceptees in the organization;
4) the participation of the "26th Street Crew" in each of the target offenses for a number of years;
5) the participation of each of the named interceptees in the RICO conspiracy and substantive offenses;
6) the use of the targeted telephone by one or more of the named interceptees;
7) a close association between the targeted telephone and both the named interceptees and the "26th Street Crew"; and
8) the use of the targeted phone in the furtherance of the illegal gambling business and the collection of gambling debts, unlawful credit, and street tax.
The specific assertions in the agent's affidavit are summarized below.
a. Background of the Interceptees/Leadership of the "26th Street Crew"
Angelo LaPietra (7-8)7, had an arrest record going back to 1938, when he was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. In 1974, he was arrested for "juice" racketeering. He resided at 250 West 30th Street in Chicago until his conviction in 1986 for interstate travel in aid of racketeering, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1952. LaPietra was convicted along with
________________
7 The page number references in this section of the Government's
memorandum refer to the pages in the September 2, 1987, affidavit of Special Agent Edwin
C. Barnett.
15
Chicago "Outfit" leaders Joseph Aiuppa, Joseph Lombardo, Jack Cerone, and others for skimming money from Las Vegas casinos.
James LaPietra (pp.8-9), Angelo's brother, was arrested in 1941 for burglary and possession of burglary tools.
Joseph Frank LaMantia, a.k.a. "Shorty",(pp. 9-10), had an arrest record dating back to 1951. Over the years he had been arrested for tampering with an automobile, burglary, robbery, larceny, theft from interstate shipment, cartage theft, shoplifting, and in 1982 for gambling. He was indicted on December 16, 1982. for violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 894 and 924 (c)(2) for which he was acquitted. He had been convicted twice.
Frank Caruso, a.k.a. "Tootsie Babe", "Toots", (pp. 10-11), was the son of the late Frank Tony Caruso, a.k.a. "Skids' n who was formerly the "Outfit" boss of the Chinatown area of Chicago. Frank "Tootsie Babe" Caruso was indicted in 1982 for violation Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 894 and 924 (c)(2) for which he was acquitted.
Frank James Calabrese, a.k.a., "Breeze", "Frankie C", (pp.ll), had an arrest record dating back to 1954 when he was convicted and served two years for violation of the Dyer Act. He was also arrested in 1963, 1974, and 1975.
Frank Cullotta, an informant who had provided reliable information in the past concerning his knowledge and association with organized crime in Chicago, testified that for twenty (20)
16
years prior to entering the Government's Witness Security Program he associated with individuals whom he knew belonged to the Chicago crime organization known as the "Outfit". He described the leadership of this organization as including Joseph Lombardo, Joseph Aiuppa, and Jack Cerone, all of whom were convicted with Angelo LaPietra in 1986 for skimming profits from Las Vegas casinos. He also testified that during his twenty year association he committed crimes such as burglary, armed robbery, and murder on behalf of this organization. Cullotta explained that "street tax" is a payment to the Chicago family which allows an individual to continue to operate an illegal or quasi-legal business and that threats of force and violence are employed if the individual refuses to pay the tax.
Tony Gallas, was a cooperating witness who had provided accurate and reliable information in the past. He furnished information to the FBI between 1968 and 1970 as well as between 1978 and 1983. He also helped in introducing FBI agents in an undercover capacity to members of the "Outfit". Gallas stated that he was aware of the existence of the criminal organization called the "Outfit" through his long association with various crime figures. In the affidavit, he stated that the "Outfit" was organized into groups and/or crews, that his personal association with Angelo LaPietra extended back "many years" and that he once helped get LaPietra to the hospital for a gun shot wound LaPietra received after they had participated in a "score". He reported that in 1968 Angelo and James LaPietra along with
17
Johnny Monteleone, Tony Spilotro, John Fecarotta, Turk Torello, Steve Annerino, and Rocco Infelise were members of a group known as the "Cicero Crew". Angelo LaPietra was in charge of the "juice" (loan sharking) operation and in 1968 this "Crew" forced a "juice" competitor out of the business by beating him and forcing him to withdraw $20,000. This individual was eventually found dead. Gallas also reported that in August of 1979, Angelo LaPietra personally told him that LaPietra would begin to operate any racket anywhere in Chicago unless it was already spoken for by another organized crime figure. During this discussion, LaPietra stated that he (LaPietra) would receive 50% from these activities and that the money was to be paid to Jimmy Cordovano who would give it to him (LaPietra). Subsequently, Cordovano told Gallas that he took the money to "a club on 26th street" and personally gave it to LaPietra. Also, Cordovano indicated that LaPietra often spent the entire evening at this club and used a call forwarding system to operate the illegal activities. The affidavit stated that Gallas said that during October of 1979 Gallas gave 100% of the proceeds from a poker game Gallas ran to Cordovano who would later return 50% to him (Gallas) as his share.
Ken Eto, a.k.a. "Tokyo Joe", had been providing reliable information to the FBI since February 1983. In January 1983, Eto was convicted in United States District Court for violation of federal gambling laws. On February 10, 1983, he was shot three times in the head by John Gattuso who was with Jasper Campise.
18
(Both of whom were later found murdered in the trunk of a car in a Chicago suburb in July of that year). Eto stated that he personally believed that the murder attempt was ordered by one of Eto's bosses in the "Outfit" out of fear that he would become an informant. In the affidavit, Eto stated that he had been associated with the "Outfit" for thirty (30) years as a gambling business operator and overseer and Eto described his thirty years of running illegal gambling operations in Chicago dating back to the 1950's, the leadership transition of the "Outfit" since the fifties, and having to pay street tax to the organization in order to operate. He stated that the "Outfit" was organized into territorial areas headed by "street bosses" which included Joseph Ferriola, Vince Solano, and Angelo LaPietra. These bosses controlled all criminal activities in their area such as gambling,extortion, prostitution, and "juice loans". Eto described how the "Outfit" obtained money from gambling operators and that he had known Angelo LaPietra for approximately 20-25 years, stating that they first met around 1956. He stated that the "Outfit" provided security to a gambling operation Eto ran around that time and that one of those persons was Angelo LaPietra. Eto stated Chateau of February, 1983 (the month he was shot and then went into Witness Protection), he knew that Angelo LaPietra was the boss of the "Southside Outfit" and was involved in the "juice" business which was being overseen for him by Frank Calabrese. Eto stated that he dealt directly with Calabrese and often Calabrese would tell Eto that Calabrese would have to get
19
permission from Angelo LaPietra in response to different questions he (Eto) would ask. Eto also stated that Joseph Frank "Shorty" LaMantia was a Outfit associate under Angelo LaPietra and that LaMantia had worked at a race track taking illegal bets and extending "juice loans". Also, Eto stated that Eto illegally bet with LaMantia at the race track.
Richard Mara began cooperating with authorities in 1980. On July 11, 1980, he entered the Witness Security Program. Prior to that, he was a long time Chicago armed robber, burglar and close associate of Chicago organized crime figures. He stated that he grew up in the 26th Street neighborhood with Frank "Tootsie Babe" Caruso and had known him for most of his life. Mara stated that Frank's father "Skids" was once the boss of the "Southside Crew" and that he operated a gambling room at 22nd and Wentworth. Mara stated that when Angelo LaPietra became the boss of the "Southside Crew" in the 1970's, "Skids" operation came under LaPietra's control. In the affidavit, Mara stated that "Tootsie Babe" always wanted to become a "big time Outfit" guy like his father and that his father would send "Tootsie Babe" out on "jobs" for the Outfit such as collecting a juice loans", burglaries, and robberies. Mara stated that Caruso would set up "scores that Mara would participate in and that Caruso was careless because Caruso would frequently use the telephone to discuss criminal activity such as "juice loans", burglaries and other "Outfit" business. Mara also stated that Caruso owned a restaurant which was across the street form the Old Neighborhood
20
Italian American Club called the "Hungry Hound Restaurant" with a man named Larry Pusateri and that they ran a "juice loan" and bookie operation from there. Mara stated that after the club (now known as the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club) was opened at 26th and Princeton, Frank Caruso, Pusateri, and LaMantia operated a gambling and juice operation there. He stated that it was a customary business practice for the "Outfit" to have a "juice loan" operation wherever there was gambling taking place. Mara also stated that LaMantia ran "juice loans" primarily from the race track on a daily basis. In the affidavit, Mara also described how Angelo LaPietra would collect the proceeds from the "Outfits'" juice operations.
Vic Arrigo was a self admitted member of the "Outfit" who had cooperated with the FBI on previous organized crime investigations and entered the Witness Security Program in 1986. He had an extensive arrest record and, through his association with other members of the "Outfit," had gained extensive knowledge of its workings. In the affidavit, Arrigo said that Frank Caruso was associated with the "Chinatown Crew" under the management of Angelo LaPietra. Arrigo said that he, Arrigo, was at a meeting with other "Outfit" members in November of 1983, when the murders of Gattuso and Campise (Ken Eto's attempted murderers) were discussed. During this conversation it was stated that the part of the Chinatown Crew headed by Frank Caruso may have done the killings. Arrigo stated that he personally overheard a conversation in which Caruso told "Babe" DeMonte that
21
Campise and Gattuso were killed because of fear they would "talk" to the FBI. Caruso also told DeMonte that had DeMonte not been in jail there would not have been a problem with the Eto "hit". In the affidavit, Arrigo described a meeting attended by Vince Solano, DeMonte, Frank Caruso, and others in which they discussed the void created by the recent conviction and sentencing of Joseph "Caesar" Divarco, and any responsibilities of those present as to "hoodlum" activities.
Guy Bills was knowledgeable about organized crime on the Southside of Chicago from his personal participation in a number of criminal activities and from information obtained from relatives who were also involved in criminal activities. Bills began working for the Angelo LaPietra organization in 1974 as a street tax and juice loan collector. This lasted for approximately eight months. He described when and how the money would be collected. In 1986, he was interviewed concerning his knowledge of the Southside organized crime group and stated that the group was headed by Angelo LaPietra until Angelo LaPietra's incarceration when his younger brother James LaPietra took over leadership. Bills also described the organizational structure the juice money collection workers and bookmakers. Mr. Bills stated that 20-25 years ago he was personally present when "Shorty" LaMantia received a street tax payoff from a "Chinaman named Wok." He also identified several bookmakers, one of which was Joseph Frank "Shorty" LaMantia.
Daniel Borak also cooperated and his cooperation resulted
22
in the 1982 arrests of Frank Caruso, Joseph Frank LaMantia, Fred Bruno Barbara, and Aldo Piscitelli. Borak stated that he had been a gambler for years and eventually he started working for LaMantia as a bookie. He was brought to the attention of LaMantia in the middle of 1979 by a co-worker of Borak's while Borak worked at the Water Department for the City of Chicago. The co-worker suggested that Borak meet with LaMantia. Later Borak was contacted on the telephone by a man named "Junior" who stated that "Shorty" wanted to meet him. Borak met with "Shorty"8 and "Junior"9, on the corner of 26th and Princeton Avenue near a grocery store.' During this meeting, they made an offer for Borak to work exclusively for them and agreed on a payment schedule. Borak stated that in 1979 LaMantia owned the grocery store10 and that since then it changed into Garibaldi's Club and then the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club. LaMantia was one of the original organizers of the club. Borak then described in detail how the bookmaking operation worked which included regular visits to 26th and Princeton Avenue to pick up money to pay off winners and to meet with Shorty LaMantia. Borak also stated that they used a call forwarding system and that he did not know the exact location of the layoff office, but that it was in the vicinity of 26th and Princeton Avenue. Borak eventually
_____________________
23
averaged $15,000 a week in bets. Borak explained that in 1982 LaMantia gave him $50,000 to loan out to his customers as a juice". Borak did not loan out the money, but instead gambled and lost it. To cover up the loss, he gave LaMantia a false list of juice borrowers. When Borak could not keep up the $2,500 a week interest payments to cover the money, he told LaMantia that the list contained an error in that he had loaned $20,000 of that to one person named "Ron".11 LaMantia became upset and a meeting was set up with SA Elder posing as "Ron." The meeting was surveilled, monitored, and recorded. During this meeting LaMantia threatened both SA Elder and Borak about the juice money. LaMantia stated that the money belonged to "other people" and that they both (LaMantia and Borak) could be in some serious trouble. During another meeting when SA Elder expressed doubt that LaMantia was "connected", LaMantia made various attempts to convince SA Elder that he was in fact connected with organized crime. These attempts included naming individuals in the organization12 and pointing to a person sitting in a nearby vehicle who he said would kill SA Elder if he (LaMantia) signaled him. On December 6, 1982, LaMantia, Frank Caruso, Fred Russo, Aldo Pisticelli attempted to get a payment on the "juice" money from SA Elder during a surveilled and monitored meeting. They were then arrested by FBI agents. The affidavit contained a synopsis of the entire transaction leading up to the arrest of
_____________________
24
LaMantia and his cohorts.
Confidential Source #1,13 was a self-admitted member of the "Outfit", a burglar, robber, and murderer who has had regular contact with top level "Outfit" members such as Joseph Ferriola, Ernest Rocco Infelise, Johnny Monteleone and others and had provided reliable information since September, 1986, based on personal experience and observations. In the affidavit, he described the organizational structure of the "Outfit" and stated that Ferriola had been the boss of the Outfit since the conviction of Aiuppa, Angelo LaPietra, Cerone, and Lombardo in 1986. He also stated that the current head of the Angelo LaPietra Crew was James LaPietra and that this "Crew" ran loan sharking ("juice"), gambling and street tax operations on the near Southside 26th Street and Chinatown areas of Chicago. He described another Outfit figure named Sam "Black Sam" Carlisi and his lieutenant James Marcello as being very strong in the Outfit.l4 He furnished information concerning several murders including the torture murder of William Petrocelli by Monteleone, Angelo LaPietra, Ferriola and Scarpelli. He stated that he had personal knowledge and experience with the "Club" located at 26th and Princeton in Chicago and that he frequented the club on a regular basis between 1976 and 1980 for purposes related to street tax collection , gambling and loan sparking. He stated
13
The credibility and reliability of the Confidential Sources are attested to in the affidavit.25
that the club had long been the headquarters and meeting place for the top members of the Angelo LaPietra Crew and that it continued to be used in that capacity. He stated that James LaPietra, Joseph Frank LaMantia, Frank Caruso, Frank Calabrese and numerous others frequented the club and regularly discussed their illegal activities within the club confines. He also stated that they regularly used the telephones within the club to discuss their illegal business transactions.
Confidential Informant "Eric Smith", which was an alias provided by the FBI to Chicago lawyer Robert Cooley, told the FBI in March, 1986, that he had information concerning involvement of the Chicago "Outfit" in gambling and public corruption. He had personal dealings with members and associates of the Outfit and the "26th Street Crew" and had provided information which had been corroborated on numerous occasions. Smith provided information on public corruption within the Cook County Court system and within the Chinatown community. He had personal contact with a number of Outfit "Bookies," some of whom stated that they worked for Angelo LaPietra and later James LaPietra. Smith stated that he would collect his winnings and pay his losses at the Hungry Hound Restaurant at 26th and Princeton located across the street from the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club. Smith stated that in January, 1987, he learned that James LaPietra had replaced his brother Angelo as the boss of the Southside Crew. He also stated that he had learned that Angelo LaPietra had ordered the murder of a John Fecarotta, who
26
worked as a juice collector for James LaPietra, from jail through his brother James.
Confidential Source #4, also stated that he was aware of the existence of the "Outfit" through conversations with members and personal observations over an extended period of time. On April 18, 1986, he stated that he was aware that the "Southside Outfit" received a monthly payoff from "Chinatown". He also stated on April 18, 1986, that a gambling operation was being operated in Chinatown at 211 West Cermakt5 and that Shorty LaMantia received a portion of the profits.
Confidential Source #5 also stated that a gambling operation was being run at 211 West Cermak and that he personally placed bets there. He described the method of placing bets, collecting winnings, and the staff of the operation. He also described how one of the staff persons fled the Chicago area out of fear of LaMantia, who had threatened the individual over money connected with the operation.
Confidential Source #6 confirmed the staff list given by C.I. #5, and stated that during January, 1987 that Shorty LaMantia employed these people at that gambling operation at 266/268 West Cermak (Sea Hoy Seafoods)
c. Information on the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club
The club was located at 26th and Princeton and the street address was 266/268 West 26th Street in Chicago. The address was formerly a business known as "Garabaldi's Deli" run by Shorty
____________________
15 Seahoy Seafoods was located at 211 West Cermak.
27
LaMantia. Utility records reflected that the billing name on utility bills sent to the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club was in Shorty LaMantia's brother, Richard LaMantia. Service had been established since 1981. Phone records provided by Illinois Bell Telephone revealed that (312) 326-5534 was a non-published number under the name Old Neighborhood Italian American Club and was billed to Frank Parilli. Two additional pay phones were listed under the Club's name which were billed to a Ralph Sherry.
Confidential Source #7, stated that on May 11, 1981, Angelo LaPietra was having the Club converted to a gambling place for his people and that "Shorty" LaMantia spent a lot of time at the club and would run the gambling operation. In June, 1981, Angelo LaPietra began to consider making it a "meeting place" instead and that Angelo LaPietra, "Shorty" LaMantia, and Frank Caruso were seen regularly at the Club.
Confidential Source #4, stated that during the spring of 1986 meetings frequently took place in the Club for the purpose of discussing illegal business operations under the guise of beneficial community work. Those illegal activities included gambling and payment/non-payment of debts from illegal businesses. One such meeting occurred on March 27, 198616. He also stated that there was a phone at the club, that the phone number was (312) 326-5534 (the targeted phone), and that he
__________________________
16 In the affidavit, SA David Childre verified that he observed James
LaPietra and "Shorty" LaMantia enter the "Club" at 6:43 p.m. and 7:05
p.m. respectively on that day.
28
personally overheard "Shorty" LaMantia discuss gambling and juice loans over that phone. He refused to give the date and time out of fear his identity would become known.
Confidential Source #8, stated that the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club was the meeting place long utilized by top level members of the Angelo LaPietra Crew and that Angelo LaPietra used it as such on a daily basis prior to his incarceration. He stated that the club was presently being used by Angelo's brother, James, to run the organization and that Confidential Source #8 had been paged on numerous occasions by individuals involved in organized crime from the telephone inside the club. He also stated that whenever he returned the pages, he had spoken about illegal gambling and other illegal matters over this telephone. Source #8 stated that he was personally aware that the club was regularly used by "Crew" members to discuss criminal activities such as loan sharking, gambling, and street tax collection.
Confidential Source #9 stated that although he had not visited the "Club" since 1981 he knew that as a result of these visits and conversations with "Dukie" Basile and Mickey Gurgone -~-that "James LaPietra, Frank Caruso, Shorty LaManita, Peter Caruso, Nick Lococo, Fred Roti and John d'Arco continued to discuss illegal business at the club and that the club had been and continued to be used as a "drop" for money obtained from these activities". In the affidavit, he stated that the above noted individuals visited the club regularly in order to transact
29
business. Source # 9 stated that there were several telephones in the club and that the private telephone (the targeted phone) was set aside to discuss "Outfit" business such as juice collection", and "illegal gambling related matters". Also, he stated that James LaPietra, Frank Caruso and Shorty LaMantia among others used this phone.
Confidential Source #10, stated that the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club used to be called "Garibaldi's n and was a "Outfit" hangout. He was last in the club in 1978 when it was called Garibaldi's but the source was aware that Angelo LaPietra used to frequently discuss business at this club and that his brother James used the club in the same manner. He also stated that the telephone inside the club was used to discuss "Outfit" business but Confidential Source #10 was unaware of specifics relating to use of the telephone.
Confidential Source #11 stated on March 27, 1986, that he regularly attended a "crap" game on the second floor of the club which was run by Frank Caruso and Larry Pusatieri. Cooperating Witness "Eric Smith" stated that he placed bets with Larry Pusateri at a dice game ran by "Shorty" LaMantia which was held several doors east of the hungry Hound Restaurant.17
Confidential Source #12, stated on November 21, 1986, that Frank Caruso was in charge of syndicated gambling in the 26th street area on behalf of the Outfit.
_____________________________
17 The Club was east of the Hungry Hound Restaurant, across Princeton
Avenue.
30
The affiant reviewed Chicago Police Department records which revealed that the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club was raided on November 28, 1982. "Shorty" LaMantia and his son, Aldo Piscitelli, were arrested after police observed Piscitelli throw water soluble papers in the toilet and Shorty LaMantia throw papers on the floor. Although most of the papers thrown in the toilet were destroyed, recovery of these and the papers on the floor revealed records of money won and lost as a result of sports bets. This occurred while the address was listed as a "social club".
d. Pen Register/Trap Information.
The affidavit in support of the application for the wiretap at the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club, contained the results of extensive coverage of pen registers. The court had authorized devices to be placed on (312) 791-1402, a telephone subscribed to by Frank Caruso at 255 West 25th Place in Chicago. These court orders, which extended from thirty (30) to sixty (60) days, registered in-coming and out-going telephone calls from July 25, 1985, to July 27, 1987. The court also authorized that pen register devices be placed on (312) 326-5808 subscribed to by Bertha LaMantia at 2812 South Shields in Chicago.l8 The orders were dated February 20, 1986 (30 days), May 6, 1987 (60 days), and July 2, 1987 (60 days). In addition to the above court orders, orders were obtained to register the incoming and out-
___________________________________
18 The "Club" is east of the Hungry Hound Restaurant, across
Princeton Avenue.
31
going calls for (312) 484-7513, subscribed to by James LaPietra at 7116 West 28th, Berwyn, Illinois, dated February 20, 1986; December 23, 1986; January 29, 1987; March 26, 1987; May 29, 1987; and July 27, 1987, and for (312) 326-5534 (the targeted telephone) at the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club from October 11, 1985 through July 27, 1987. The July 27, 1987 order was a 60 day order.
As a result of the above court orders, it was determined that calls were dialed or pulsed to or from the targeted telephone at the "Club" and the primary interceptees frequently. The affiant of the affidavit stated that he reasonably believed that these calls were calls placed by the primary interceptees to the "Club" or were placed from the club by the primary interceptees . The following shows the results of the court ordered registers between the "Club" and the primary interceptees: Frank Caruso ( 322 calls), Shorty LaMantia ( 216 calls), James LaPietra (138 calls).
In addition to the above calls, the registers revealed that at least one thousand and ninety-five (1095)19 calls were made from the targeted telephone to the residences, homes, or businesses of individuals who were identified by confidential informants and/or police records as being either associated with the "Outfit" and other criminal organizations or "made members" of those organizations. Many of those individuals had arrest and
________________________
19 See affidavit from pages 98 through 126
32
conviction records for illegal gambling, murder, battery, burglary, armed robbery, and other crimes. Others have been identified as being involved in gambling, and juice collection by confidential informants. The names of those individuals were: Angelo LaPietra, Kurt Calabrese, Nick Lococo, Michael Talarico, Bill Lazzaro, Michael "Gorilla" Gurgone, Raymond Tominello, Fred Roti, Pat Marcy, James Marcello, Anthony Serritella, Angelo Imparato, Anthony Carvotta, John Balzano, Richard Catezone, Richard LaMantia, Joseph Pacella, Fred Barbara, Joseph Sarelli, Richard DeSantis, Mort Geller, Tony Boom, Morris Mutt" Caruso, Peter Caruso, Carmen Coco, John Sansone, Anthony "Tony Ripe" Civella, Rocco LaMantia, Frank DeMonte, Lawerence Marfoe, and Harvey May.
The affidavit described the results of physical surveillances conducted at the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club. me surveillances conducted were not continuous but consisted of "drive-by" or "spot check" surveillances where investigators drove by the club and recorded their observations. A continuous surveillance was attempted in the Fall of 1985,but was terminated after the subjects became aware of it. The affidavit listed the results of over 120 drive-by surveillances. This revealed that James LaPietra's vehicle was seen at the "Club" sixty-six (66) times from February, 1985, to July, 1987. He was also seen in the vicinity of the "Club" twenty-three times (23) from August, 1985, to July, 1987. On some of the occasions
33
his vehicle was not recorded as being present. Frank Caruso lived behind the "Club" within walking distance and thus did not have to use his vehicle to get there. Nevertheless, his vehicle was observed at the "Club" twenty-five (25) times between June, 1985, and April, 1987, and he was seen in the vicinity of the "Club" seven (7) times.
Joseph Frank "Shorty" LaMantia's presence was harder-to detect at the "Club" since no vehicle had ever been identified (since June 1985) as being registered to Joseph Frank LaMantia and it was known that he was frequently dropped off or drove another person's vehicle. The affidavit provided a record of sightings of various vehicles at his home that would be seen at the "Club". Also, the affidavit provided a record of sightings of Shorty LaMantia exiting those vehicles and entering the "Club". There were four vehicles identified and those vehicles were sighted twenty-eight (28) times time sat both LaMantia's residence and the "Club" between January, 1987, and July, 1987 twenty-eight (28) times.
The affidavit showed that fifty-five telephone calls wed placed between telephones at the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Connecticut (where Angelo LaPietra's was incarcerated) and the targeted phone at the "Club" between April, 1, 1987, and July, 29, 1987. Telephone calls from these facilities were widely known by jail inmates to be monitored. The recordings of those calls were obtained by the affiant and
34
some of them were summarized in the affidavit. Those calls show frequent conversations between Angelo LaPietra, James LaPietra, Shorty LaMantia, and others. The speakers frequently talked in coded phrases which were described in the affidavit.
The affidavit provided substantial probable cause demonstrating the long standing existence of an organized crime group in Chicago known variously as the "Outfit" or the "Organization". The evolution of this group was traced from the 1950's through July, 1987 (Cullotta, Eto). The affidavit also provided substantial probable cause that this organization was structured into territories and "Groups/Crews" and that the "Southside/Chinatown Group" and/or "26th Street Crew" was a long standing organization operating as one of those Groups/Crews (Eto, Mara, Bills, C.S.1, Smith, C.S.4, C.S.7, C.S.8, C.S.9, C.S.10, C.S.12,). The leadership of the crew had passed from Frank "Skids" Caruso to Angelo LaPietra to James LaPietra (Mare, Eto, Bills, C.S.1, Smith). The mainstay of this criminal organization remained constant, i.e. the operation of various illegal gambling businesses, the collection of extortionate street tax through the threat/use of violence and the extension and collection of extortionate credit.
Each of the named interceptees were shown to have had a long criminal association with the "26th Street Crew"( Gallas, Eto, Mara, Arrigo, Bills, Borak, C.S.1, Smith, C.S.5, C.S.7, C.S.4, C.S.9, C.S.10, C.S.11, C.S.12). Angelo LaPietra had been the
35
"street boss" of the group after taking over the operation from "Skids" Caruso in the 1970's (Mare, Eto, Bills, Smith, C.S.7, C.S.8, C.S.1, ). The affidavit showed his association with this "Crew" long preceded Caruso's death and his association with the "Outfit" had been life-long and extended back at least into the 1950's (Eto "l956", Gallas "1968", Bills "1974", C.S.7 "1981", conviction in "1986"). While in prison he ordered the murder of a "juice collector" who worked for his brother (Smith). Angelo LaPietra had also supervised loan sharking (Gallas) and gambling (Eto.)
Joseph Frank "Shorty" LaMantia was shown to have been closely associated with the "26th Street Crew" for at least two decades, ( Bills "1960-1965", C.S.7 "1981", C.S.9 "1981", Borak, "1979-1982", SA David Childre "1986", Eto, Mara, C.S.1, C.S.4, C.S.5, C.S.6, Smith, Nov. 28, 1982 C.P.D. raid at "Club"). He had been connected with the groups illegal gambling, "juice" and street tax activities (Sills "1960-1965", C.S.7 "1981", C.S.9 "1981", Borak, "1979-1982", Eto, Mara, C.S.1, C.S.4, C.S.5, C.S.6, Smith, Nov. 28, 1982 C.P.D. raid at "Club").
Frank Caruso was also shown to have been closely associated with the U26th Street Crew" ( Mara, Arrigo, 1982 arrest with Shorty LaMantia, C.S.1, C.S.7, C.S.9, CS.11, C.S.12). In fact, his goal in life was to be a "big Outfit guy" like his father who sent him out on Outfit jobs (Mara). He had operated the 26th Street Crew's gambling operation (Mare, C.S.11, C.S.12).
James LaPietra was not only shown to have been closely
36
associated with the 26th Street Crew, but was in fact a leader of that organization. (Bills, C.S.1,, Smith, C.S.8, C.S.10).
The criminal activity the named interceptees engaged in with each other did not involve discrete single event crimes. Rather, they were continuous crimes involving, both repeated criminal acts and communications among the conspirators. The illegal sports gambling business required the operation of wirerooms, the reporting of profits and losses, the collection of losing bets. Street tax was collected on a monthly basis and required continuous monitoring of the "Crew's territory" to ensure that all illegal and semi-legal business were paying the tax. Loan sharking was the regular periodic collection and extension of extortionate credit. The affidavit showed that the interceptees were part of an illegal organization that had been in the "business" of crime for decades and that the enterprise had an hierarchical structure and continuous part of leadership no different from a Fortune Five Hundred corporation. The named interceptees constituted the management of that criminal business. Such an enterprise would have needed continuous communication to function.
There was probable cause present in the affidavit to show that the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club was one of the "communication centers" of the "26th Street Crew". Numerous confidential informants stated that the club was the meeting place of this organization. Also, some of these informants stated that they personally observed, overheard, or spoke with named
37
interceptees over the targeted phone located in the club about criminal matters. These crimes included gambling, loan sharking, and street tax collection. Some informants even stated that they personally participated in gambling at this club. Even under the former Auguilar-Spinelli guidelines, the personal observations of a confidential source are sufficient to establish the basis for his information, so that a judge or magistrate will know that he or she is relying on something more than a casual rumor. Seen e.g.. United States v. Deggendorf, 626 F.2d 47, S1 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Rollins 522 F.2d 160, 164 (2d Cir. 1975).
Furthermore, there was probable cause to show that each of the named interceptees regularly communicated through the targeted telephone. Pen registers have been widely accepted by courts as a proper and significant means to aid in establishing probable cause or electronic surveillance of telephones. See e.g., United States v. Young. 877 F.2d 1099, 1103 (let Cir. 1989); United States v. Danovaro. 877 F.2d 583, 585 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Gonzalez. 866 F.2d 781, 787 (5th Cir.1989); Leisure, 844 F.2d at 1355; United States v. Tehfe 772 F.2d 1114 (3d Cir. 1983); United States v. Todisco, 667 F.2d 255,258 (2d Cir.1981). The affidavit contained pen register results that showed repeated calls between the targeted telephone and the homes/residences of the named interceptees. Frank Caruso had a total of 322 calls registered. Shorty LaMantia had 216 calls and James LaPietra had 138. It is inconceivable that given the
38
longstanding nature and type of the criminal relationship between these individuals that probable cause was not present, that these telephone calls were purely social in nature or did not relate to criminal activity. The probability of the criminal nature of the calls is strengthened by the fact the an extraordinary number of calls (1095) from the targeted telephone were to individuals who were identified by named and unnamed informants and/or criminal records as being either "Outfit" members or associates. Many of those individuals had arrest and conviction records for illegal gambling, murder, battery, burglary, armed robbery, and other crimes. Others have been identified as being involved in gambling and juice collection by confidential informants. When an individual is known to be engaging in on-going criminal conduct and a pen register discloses numerous calls between that individual and others also known to be engaging in criminal conduct, the balance weighs heavily in favor of a probable cause finding that a wiretap may disclose criminal evidence. Gonzalez, 860 F.2d at 787; Tehfe, 772 F.2d at 1118-19; Todisco, 677 F.2d at 258; United States v. Errera, 616 F.Supp. 1145, 1150 ( D. Md. 1985).
The defendants contend that some of the informants' basis of knowledge is not included in the affidavit. This argument lacks credibility; the defense admits that the named informants have given information in the past. ~ The affidavit trots out just about every living organized crime informer ever used by the
39
Chicago-based federal law enforcement authorities. However, in United States v. Pless, 982, F.2d 1118, 1125 (7th Cir. 1992), the court stated that "although an informant's first-hand observations would generally be entitled to greater weight, clearly probable cause may be founded on hearsay reports." Also, "probable cause supported warrant where tip was substantially corroborated by officer's independent investigation and information from other, unnamed, informants, including one claimed to be reliable, even though some of the information was three months old." see also United States v. Pritchard 745 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir.1984).
The defendants contend that much of the information in the affidavit is stale, apparently because many of the events cited occurred between 1950-1986. Their arguments relative to both staleness and probable cause are an attempt to hide the forest by magnifying its individual trees. Not addressed is the long standing nature of this criminal enterprise and the life-long membership of the interceptees in that organization. "While the lapse of time involved is an important consideration and may in some cases be controlling, it is not necessarily so. There are other factors to be considered, including the nature of the criminal activity involved, and the kind of property for which authority to search is sought." Ozar, 50 F.3d 1446. There are no hard and fast rules on staleness. It can only be judged by
_______________________
20 Defendant's Motion to Suppress page 6.
40
reference to the particular type of criminal activity. "Thus, when the affidavit recites on-going criminal activity of a type likely to continue over a substantial period of time, the timeliness of the information in the affidavit is less important." Dorfman, 542 F. Supp at 362. see also United States v. Musson, 650 F.Supp 525, 534 (D.Col.1986) citing United States v. Reyes 798 F.2d 380, 382 (1Oth Cir.1986), "timeliness is not determined by counting the number of days or months between the occurrence of the facts relied upon and the issuance of a warrant. Timeliness depends upon the nature of the underlying circumstances and concepts. When the activity is of a protracted and continuous nature the passage of time diminishes in significance.) Given the nature of the criminal activity that was being investigated, particularly the operation of and participation in a continuing criminal enterprise, it was not unreasonable for the court, relying upon to rely on statements made in 1983 and 1984 and records dated in the late 1970's and early 1980's, to conclude that there was probable cause. Musson, 650 F. Supp. at 534.
The affidavit shows that the enterprise that was the "26th Street Crew" and its "corporate head," the "Chicago Outfit," had been in the business of illegal gambling, street tax collection and loan sharking for over forty years. The interceptees had a known association with that organization for much of those forty years. Frank Caruso grew up within the organization with membership being passed from father to son like a family
41
business. The affidavit traced the history of this organization and the interceptees' association with it. It then provided information which, at a minimum, suggested the continuing criminal nature of their association. In United States v. Williams 798 F.2d 1024, 1034 (7th Cir.1986), the Court of Appeals dealt with a similar situation. There the court stated that "the fact that details of drug transactions occurring in 1982 and 1983 were included in the affidavit does not mean that the affidavit concerned events too remote in time to create probable cause. Instead, those details provided vital background information that bolsters the reliability of the confidential informant and the affiant, as well as depicting the operating methods of a continuing scheme."
Furthermore, pen register results provided in the affidavit revealed that the interceptees were continuing to associate by way of the targeted phone at the Old Neighborhood Italian American Club up to the time of the court ordered interception. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals dealt with a similar situation in Tehfe, 772 F.2d at 1119
In this case, ample information in the affidavit shows that the Tehfe operation was one of several years standing. The and there was no staleness in the view of recent information which permitted finding that the enterprise was connected with the targeted telephone and that in the week just before the wiretap application pen registers recorded calls from the principal to the targeted phone and there was evidence that the enterprise included a series of contacts with the targeted phone.
United States v. Tehfe, Supra, 772 F.2d at 1119.
During the interceptees' decades long association with the
42
26th Street Crew, they had continued to engage in the same crimes of illegal gambling, loan sharking, and collection of "street tax.
The method of attack on the affidavit that the defense engages in is neither new nor novel. In Leisure, 844 F.2d at 1354, the Eighth Circuit dealt with this strategy and stated:
Appellants engage in a "divide and conquer" attack on the affidavit, and urge this court to undertake a piecemeal dismemberment of the various paragraphs of the affidavit without attention to its force as a whole. We decline this invitation to review the affidavit in an overly stringent and hypertechnical fashion. "It is sufficient that the information in the affidavit, when assessed in its totality, was sufficient to support a reasonable belief" that evidence of criminality by the subject of the surveillance would be obtained.
Special Agent Barnett's November 4, 1987, affidavit incorporated his prior affidavit, which set forth probable cause to believe that James LaPietra, Joseph Frank LaMantia, and Frank Caruso, and others utilized the "Club" to discuss, meet and otherwise carry on their illegal activities. The November 4, 1987, affidavit also set out additional facts to update the probable cause that had been gathered from confidential sources, named informants and cooperating witnesses. The November 4, 1987 application sought authorization to conduct electronic surveillance of the "Club" through the use of microphones for oral communications through the use of microphones involving
43
illegal gambling, extension and collection of extortionate credit, and street tax collection. The updated information is summarized below:
a. Intercepted Wire Communication
The affidavit contained the dates and times that James LaPietra, LaMantia and Frank Caruso were intercepted during the September 2, 1987, court ordered wire interception period. The proposed interceptees were shown to be at the "Club" on a regular basis. James LaPietra was intercepted making out-going calls during the wire interception period on September 4, 5, 6, 8, 11,18, 21 and 22, 1987. LaMantia was intercepted three times on September 8th t the first call was at 1154 and the last call was at 1921); three times on September 9th (first call was at 1149 and the last was at 1352); once on September 10th and two times on September 22 (first call wee at 1045 and the last at 1100). LaMantia was detected at the Club from background conversations overheard on the wire interception on September 4, 8, 19, 21, and 22. Frank Caruso was intercepted at the "Club" on September 10, 11, 18 and 22. During the period of intercepted wire communications, an out-going call was placed by an individual believed to be Frank Parolee, who was known to work for Angelo LaPietra. During this conversation he temporarily stopped conversing and picked up another telephone. When he finished conversing on that telephone, he continued with his original conversation. He explained to the original party that he "has two telephones to watch" The affiant noted in the affidavit that the targeted
44
telephone was located at 268 West 26th Street and that there were two coin phones listed for the adjoining section of the "Club" at 266 West 26th Street. This lead the affiant to believe that the two telephones mentioned by the speaker who was in the 268 West 26th street section of the "Club" were not listed to the Club and might be "safe telephones" which the interceptees knew could be used for illegal business. There two "safe" telephones were not the subject of the court's interception order, were not intercepted, and were unknown to the affiant.
Surveillance conducted at the "Club" showed the presence of a vehicle registered to James LaPietra on September 21 and the 23. LaMantia was seen in the vicinity of the "Club" and entering the "Club" on September 20, 21, and 23. c. Meetings at the "Club" Confidential Source #13 (16-17)2lstated on September 21, 1987, that the bookmaking operation of Michael Talarico, an Outfit associate, had been moved from the "Club" to a location above a travel agency on 31st and Princeton, but that the "Club" was still used as a meeting place. On September 9, 1987, C.S.13 also stated that Michael Talarico rang poker game at 31st and Princeton on Wednesday and Sunday nights. The affiant concluded that Michael Talarico continued to run illegal gambling for James LaPietra.
On September 27 and 28, a person referred to as "Captain D" (believed to be Donald DiFazzio) and Richard Catezone were overheard
____________________
21 The page number reference in this section refers to the November 4, 1987
affidavit.
45
as a result of the wire monitoring calling numerous individuals reminding them of a meeting at the "Club" at 7:30 p.m. on September 29. During a surveillance of the "Club" on that date, the FBI identified James LaPietra, Mickey Gurgone, Frank Caruso, Joe Pacella, Michael Talarico and others enter and exit the "Club".
On May 4, a recorded telephone call from Angelo LaPietra to the "Club" revealed him talking about a Captains Meeting" to occur at the "Club" on Tuesday night, May 5, 1987. The affiant stated that it was apparent from the conversation that LaMantia and James LaPietra ran the meeting and that the meetings occur on a regular basis. In the September 2, 1987 affidavit C.S. #4 stated that meetings took place at the "Club" for the purpose of discussing "Outfit" business and was attended by "Outfit" members and associates. He stated that those normally in attendance included James LaPietra, Frank Caruso, and LaMantia.
On October 14, 1987, Confidential Source #1 told SA Tom Noble that he had learned the Mickey Gurgone went to and met with James LaPietra at the "Club" during the week of September 28-October 2nd. The purpose of the meeting was to determine if an independent bookie named James Vinerelli was paying "street tax" to any other "Crew". It was determined that he was not and a decision was made to send a "representative of the 26th Street Crew" to collect the street tax. An independent surveillance of the "Club" on September 29 resulted in observing James LaPietra, Mickey Gurgone and others exiting the "Club" between 9-9:30 p.m.
Confidential Source #8 stated on October 2 and 6th that from
46
conversations with "26th Street Crew" members CS-8 learned that the day to day gambling operations of the "Crew" continued to be run from the a Club" by James LaPietra, LaMantia, and others.
Confidential Source #9 stated on October 2 and 6th that he had remained in contact with a member of the "26th Street Crew" and that he had learned that James LaPietra, "Shorty" LaMantia and others continued to use the "Club" as a meeting place to discuss the daily operations of the "Crew" which includes gambling and street tax collections.
The September 2, 1987, affidavit set forth sufficient probable cause that the "Old Neighborhood Italian American Club" was in fact a meeting place long utilized by the criminal organization known as the "Southside/Chinatown Crew" and/or the "26th Street Crew". The November 4, ,987, affidavit provided additional information that showed that this decades-old criminal organization continued to use this "Club" as their meeting place to discuss the running of their illegal gambling, loan sharking, and street tax operations. The defendant's argument against the November 4, 1987, affidavit is the same as his argument against the September 2, 1987, affidavit. In both instances, the defendant's attack is patently meritless.
In the incorporated September 2, 1987, affidavit and the Nov 4, 1987, affidavit, much of the information provided was cross-corroborated by the named and unnamed informants. One such piece of information was that the "Old Neighborhood Italian American Club" was the meeting place of the "26th Street Crew" for years and that
47
all of the named interceptees were closely associated with both the "Club" and the "26th Street Crew". The affidavit showed that an assortment of known criminal figures regularly visited this "Club". Some of the informants described meetings held there by the "Crew". In the November 4, 1987, affidavit, Confidential Informant #1 gave the identities of two individuals, the time period and illegal purpose of the meeting. Independent surveillance confirmed the presence of these two individuals during the stated time frame at the "Club". Another such meeting was organized on September 27 and 28, by a person referred to as "Captain D" (believed to be Donald DiFazzio) and Richard Catezone. Authorities became aware of this meeting when Captain D and Catezone were overheard as a result of the wire monitoring calling numerous individuals reminding them of a meeting at the "Club" at 7:30 p.m. on September 29. During a surveillance on the "Club" on that date, FBI identified James LaPietra, Mickey Gurgone, Frank Caruso, Joe Pacella, and Michael Talarico and others entering and exiting the "Club". All of the above named individuals are identified as being associated with the "Outfit" in either the incorporated September 2, 1987 affidavit or the November 4, 1987 affidavit.
A meeting was also organized on May 4th, which was revealed from a recorded telephone call from the incarcerated Angelo LaPietra to the "Club" in which he talked about a "Captains Meeting" which was to occur at the "Club" on Tuesday night, May 5, 1987. The affiant stated that it was apparent from the conversation that "Shorty" LaMantia and James LaPietra ran the meeting and that the
48
meetings occur on a regular basis.
The defendant argues that the purpose of these meetings was largely unknown and that one such meeting "could have been to organize a Easter Egg hunt." The law however indicates that "even if there is a possibly innocent explanation, as long as there is a reasonable probability that there is criminal activity afoot, despite the presence of other possibilities, probable cause is present. See. e.g.. United States v. Davis. 882 F.2d 1334, 1343 (8th Cir. 1989) ; United States v. Anton, 633 F.2d 1252, 1254 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1084, 101 S.Ct. 870, 66 L.Ed. 808 (1981); Dorfman, S42 F. Supp. at 359. Also, that a probable cause is only a reasonable probability of criminal activity; it does not require certainty or even a prima facie showing of criminal activity. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 590, 21 L.Ed. 2d 637 (1969); United States v. Giacalone, 853 F.2d 470, 4478 (6th Cir. 1988); Dorfman, 542 F.Supp. at 359. The November 4, affidavit provides such a reasonable probability that criminal activity was occurring under the same case law cited to support the finding of probable cause in the September 2, 1987, affidavit.
Decisions of the authorizing judge are afforded substantial deference and will be disturbed only if they manifest an abuse of the court's discretion. United States v.Quintana, 508 F.2d 867, 874-75 (7th Cir. 1975).
49
On September 2, 1987, the government submitted to the court an application to intercept the wire communications of Angelo and James LaPietra, Joseph Frank LaMantia, Frank Caruso, and "others as yet unknown." [Def.Ex. 1 at 1.] The government alleged the longstanding involvement of the named parties and others in a widespread and complex enterprise engaged in illegal gambling, extortionate credit practices, and the collection of "street tax" levied on the owners of illegal and quasi-legal businesses. The application set forth the government's belief that Joseph Frank LaMantia and others, named and unnamed, were using public telephone number (312) 326-5534, located at The Old Neighborhood Italian American Club t the Club], 268 W. 26th St., Chicago, Illinois, in the commission of the offenses outlined in the application. [Def.Ex. 1 at 4-6.] The application also stated that "normal investigative procedures for determining the full scope of the conspiracy and nature of the illegal enterprise either have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear unlikely to succeed if continued, or reasonably unlikely to succeed if tried, or are too dangerous." [Def.Ex. 1 at 6.]
In support of its application, the government submitted an affidavit prepared by Special Agent Barnett, a five-year FBI veteran. [F.B.I.] The affidavit outlined the agent's three-year involvement in the subject investigation. The affidavit likewise presented an extensive factual predicate for the agent's considered, professional conclusion that the named and unnamed parties had been
50
and were continuing to use the telephone located in the Club to commit the enumerated state and federal offenses. [Def.Ex. 2 at 4-6.] Agent Barnett stated that the wire communications of the named and unnamed parties the government expected to intercept would pertain to the operation of the illegal activities outlined in the government's application:
In particular, teamed on the information hereinafter provided, these wire communications will concern evidence of the above described offenses including their activities relative to the management of illegal gambling including activity of others who are involved in racketeering. The conversations will involve discussions of accounts, the making of loans, collections, extortions, bookmaking, payment of tribute by others to the interceptees to allow such others to continue to operate illegal gambling games (also known as "street tax" payments) as well as conversations to set up other meetings at other locations, presently unknown, to discuss these matters in conversations concerning the complicity and activities of unknown conspirators.22
[Def.Ex. 2 at 6.] The affidavit expressed the Agent's informed professional opinion that "normal investigative techniques have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or would be too dangerous." [Def.Ex. 2 at 7.]
To substantiate his conclusions, Agent Barnett offered information obtained from eight named and fourteen unnamed informants with ties to the named parties or the target criminal enterprise. [Def.Ex. 2 at 17, 18, 21, 27, 31, 35, 38, 58, 66, 67,
________________________
22 The target interceptions, both wire and oral communications, were similarly
restricted by the government in all subsequent applications and extensions.
51
76, 81, 83, 85, 89, 90, 104, 112.3 These informants provided the following information:
1. It was the uniform opinion of those informants, as well as a reasonable inference drawn from collateral information related by them, that penetration of the enterprise would be both difficult and dangerous. [Def.Ex. 2 at 19, 21, 29, 31, 33-34, 40, 45-46, 49, 62-64, 69, 75-76, 87,-90-91.]
2. Informant Eto was the subject of an assassination attempt following his conviction on federal gambling charges. Eto expressed his reasonable belief that his execution was ordered to prevent possible cooperation with law enforcement personnel. The would-be assassins were themselves later slain following the bungled attempt. [Def.Ex. 2 at 21-22.] The consensus in the relevant community is that members of the subject criminal enterprise were responsible for these acts. [Def.Ex. 2 at 33-34.]
3. Agent Barnett was personally involved in the murder investigation of John Fecarotta, executed when law enforcement authorities granted him immunity to testify before the President's Commission on Organized Crime. Agent Barnett related that as a consequence of the murder, "[r]elatives and other witnesses [were] very reluctant to furnish information out of fear of retribution. . . ." [Def.Ex. 2 at 62-64.]
4. Many reliable informants related to Agent Barnett the heightened sensitivity to physical surveillance of the named interceptees and their associates. Individual subjects were likewise observed using a variety of vehicles in the conduct of their affairs. [Def.Ex. 2 at 28, 48-50, 55-57,.87, 103, 126-27, 130-32.]
5. Numerous informants related that admission to or participation in the organization or its activities did not shield members or participants from violence when problems arose. [Def.Ex. 2 at 18, 21-22, 40-41, 53-57, 62, 66, 73.]
6. Numerous informants provided information of longstanding illegal gambling, extortionate credit practices,
52
racketeering activities, and gangland violence taking place at sites throughout greater Chicago and northern Indiana. Information provided by those same sources indicates participation in and orchestration of those activities by the named parties and their associates. [Def.Ex. 2 at 19, 22-25, 32-33, 35-37, 41, 65, 72-73, 111, 114.]
7. Numerous informants related their personal knowledge that the Club was used to conduct the business affairs of the illegal gambling operation. [Def.Ex. 2 at 42, 76-78, 80, 82-83, 84-89.]
8. Several previous unsuccessful or partially successful investigations or surveillance efforts were disclosed. These included physical searches, numerous neighborhood drive-throughs and covert surveillance, and an unsuccessful attempt to rent a nearby house from which to view the Club. [Def.Ex. 2 at 43, 57, 59-60, 69-72, 88-89, 113, 126-32.] Recovery of possible gambling records was stymied in one raid when one of the named interceptees was able to toss water-soluble paper used to record data into a toilet before being apprehended by law enforcement personnel.
9. Information presented suggested that members of the enterprise were privy to confidential information relating to ongoing law enforcement activities, thereby placing at risk the integrity of clandestine operations. [Def.Ex. 2 at 59-61, 65, 68-70.]
10. Agent Barnett acknowledged in his affidavit that the results of numerous court-authorized pen register and trap and trace devices, as well as review summaries of telephone toll records "in and of themselves only provided circumstantial evidence that the telephone was used and that contact was made between two telephones. They do not identify those individuals actually making and receiving telephonic communications, nor do they ascertain the nature of the communication. n [Def.Ex. 2 at 91-126, 148.]
Agent Barnett related his informed professional opinion that all of the sources from whom information had been gathered were
53
properly "fearful for their lives and most certainly would be in jeopardy" if their involvement with law enforcement authorities were made known. [Def.Ex. 2 at 144.] He also concluded that the information developed by various alternative investigatory techniques provided "a very limited view of activities" occurring at the Club. [Def.Ex. 2 at 127.] Agent Barnett then listed nine reasons why those same sources were not properly positioned to provide further information necessary to ascertain the extent of the criminal activities or ferret out the leaders of the organization, the stated goals of the investigation. [Def.Ex. 2 at 145-46.]
Agent Barnett next assessed the strengths, limitations, and effects on the ongoing investigation of numerous alternative methods used to develop information, including grand jury subpoenas and immunity, physical surveillance, telephonic toll records, trap and trace devices, police records, search warrants, and infiltration. In his professional opinion, the sources then available to the government were unlikely to "identify the full extent of the illegal activities of the enterprise." [Def.Ex. 2 at 147-50.] The agent indicated that all clandestine wire interceptions, if authorization were obtained, would conform to the minimization requirements ~ -forth in Chapter 119, Title 18, United States Code; he likewise affirmed that the law enforcement officers responsible for monitoring the interceptions would receive "the necessary minimization orientation. [Def.Ex. 2 at 151.]23
_____________________
23 Every agent, officer and AUSA involved in the operation was required to read
the affidavit submitted by the government in support of the application in order to
familiarize themselves with the (continued...)
54
On the strength of these representations, the court issued a wire intercept authorization order for pay telephone number (312) 326-5534, located at the Club. [Def.Ex. 3.] It stated in relevant part:
[The government is authorized] to intercept wire communications of Angelo Pietra, Lames LaPietra, Frank Caruso, Joseph Frank LaMantia, and others as yet unknown . . . . Such interception shall not automatically terminate . . . but shall continue until communications are intercepted that reveal the manner in which Angelo LaPietra, Lames LaPietra, Frank Caruso, Joseph Frank LaMantia . . ., Frank Calabrese . . . and others as yet unknown participate in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through the collection of unlawful gambling debts and commission of racketeering acts . . . and which reveal the identities of their confederates, their places of operation, and the nature of the conspiracy involved, or for thirty (30) days, whichever is earlier
[Def . Ex. 3 at 4 - 5 . ] In issuing the order, the court expressed its finding that "normal investigative procedures have been tried and ##
_______________________
23(...continued)
nature of the investigation, the subject crimes, and the principal interceptees and their
confederates. They were likewise required to read an court orders authorizing
interception: an agents and officers were required to sign a sheet indicating their
compliance with these directives. Every agent, officer, and AUSA involved in the operation
was also required to attend a minimization conference held by the attorney in charge and
two Special Attorneys from the Organized Crime Strike Force, U.S. Department of Justice.
Attendees were briefed on compliance with the court orders; particular emphasis was placed
on: a) the type of communications targeted; b) the subject crimes to which the target
communications related; c) minimization generally and minimization of non-pertinent
matters in particular; d) procedures for handling communications relating to crimes not
named in the court order; e) procedures for handling privileged communications; and f)
procedures for handling equipment malfunctions. AU participants were instructed to
familiarize themselves with the directives set forth in the affidavits and the court
orders; they were likewise required to sign a sheet indicating their attendance at the
minimization conference. A written minimization memorandum also set forth the duties of
the agents and officers involved in the operation. Specific instructions were therein
provided to each monitoring agent and officer involved in order to ensure technical and
procedural consistency throughout the life of the court order. Copies of the affidavits,
court orders, and minimization memorandum were posted at the monitoring site. All
attorneys involved in the operation, including the attorney in charge, were placed on 24
hour call during the entirety of the operation. Telephone numbers were provided to enable
monitoring agents to reach supervisory attorneys at any time if problems or questions
arose.
55
failed, reasonably appear unlikely to succeed continued, reasonably appear unlikely to succeed if tried, or are too dangerous.24 [Def.Ex. 3 at 4.] The order mandated that the government provide the court with status reports to be submitted at five-day intervals during the life of the interception order25.[Def.Ex. 3 at 5-6.] The court also set forth limitations on the type and content of the communications the government was authorized to intercept26. [Def.Ex. 3 at 3.] The 30-day authorization order was issued on September 2, 1987.27 At the end of the 30 day period the government did not seek a renewal of the authority to intercept ##
_________________
24 The court issued identical findings after reviewing
affidavits and documentation submitted in support of subsequent applications and
extensions.