United States v. Turk
526 F.2d 654
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Case Number 74-3626
Before Circuit Judge Gewin, Circuit Judge Goldberg, and Circuit Judge Dyer
Decided on January 29, 1976

Relevancy of the Case: Admissibility of illegally seized tape recordings at a subsequent perjury trial

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The county police got a tip-off that two individuals would leave a specified Miami residency in silver sports cars. They will have cocaine and guns in the car. The police arrested these two individuals, namely Khabbaby and Roblin. The police also found two tapes and a tape recorder in the car.
• The officers heard these tape recordings. They were between one of the arrested persons and Turk, the defendant-appellant.
• The court subpoenaed the defendant-appellant before a grand jury. He initially pleaded the Fifth Amendment privilege to not testify. After the government granted him immunity from prosecution, he testified that he did not participate in buying, selling, or trafficking drugs.
• Subsequently, he was indicted on two counts each of irreconcilable contradictory statements, obstruction of justice, and perjury.
• He has appealed before this court, stating that the court cannot consider the recorded tapes as evidence.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the police officers’ seizure of tapes constituted an interception of his private conversation. 18 USC § 2515 bars the introduction of these tapes before the grand jury. He further submitted that his conviction was tainted by the violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The findings of the tape were the result of an illegal search and seizure.
• The appellee’s counsel argued that Section 2511(2)(d) specifically exempts situations where one party to the conversation is the interceptor. Moreover, the appellant does not have the standing to invoke the Fourth Amendment.

Opinion of the Bench

• A witness cannot invoke the exclusionary rule from the Fourth Amendment before a grand jury.
• The arrest was proper; however, the police’s warrantless playing of the tape was improper. The appellant had the standing to challenge the officers’ playing of the tape recordings.
• However, introducing the seized evidence at the perjury trial was not an error in the eyes of the law. This omits the appellant’s standing.

Final Decision

• The court dismissed the appeal.