United States v. Campagnuolo
592 F.2d 852
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Case Number 78-1352
Before Circuit Judge Wisdom, Circuit Judge Goldberg, and Circuit Judge Vance
Decided on April 06, 1979

Relevancy of the Case: Validity of evidence obtained through reconnecting a disconnected telephone during a search

Statutes and Provisions Involved

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

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The FBI suspected that FC and his associates were conducting a gambling enterprise. They secured a warrant to search his apartment.
• During the search, an FBI agent found an envelope containing gambling information. However, FC denied any knowledge of this information. Another FBI agent reconnected a disconnected telephone and received 42 calls of wagers or requests for gambling information.
• Aurillio, a partner of FC, appeared before the jury under a grant of immunity. The grand jury handed down a three-count indictment against FC, JC, and Gougules. The jury also charged them for using interstate telephone facilities for gambling purposes and to transmit information assisting in the placing of wagers on sporting events.
• The District Court dismissed the indictment on the ground that the government had improperly disclosed the wiretap evidence before the grand jury. A day before the trial, the government gave the defence counsel a copy of certain evidentiary material.
• The defence counsel moved to suppress FC’s statement, as the government should have given the evidence long before. As a result, the government did not comply with the court’s discovery order. The counsel also sought the suppression of the telephone calls that the FBI agent received.
• The District Court granted both motions in favour of the defendant, rejecting the government’s arguments. Hence, the government has filed the present appeal against the dismissal.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The government’s counsel argued that the District Court should not have suppressed FC’s statement denying knowledge of the envelope. The government’s non-compliance could not have prejudiced him. Moreover, the District Judge was wrong in adjudicating the government’s failure to disclose Aurillio’s testimony. The actions of a police officer conducting a valid search who answers a ringing telephone do not constitute an interception under the wiretapping statutes.

Opinion of the Bench

• The District Court suppressed evidence under a valid discovery order. The defendant knew that Aurillio was a prospective government witness. The defence counsel could only examine his testimony after he gave his direct testimony at the trial.
• The government is not obliged to furnish information that the defendant already has or can obtain himself. When the FBI agent reconnected the telephone, he did not violate the wiretapping laws even if his actions fall under “interception”.
• The telephone calls were not tangible evidence. The agent could only present the evidence through testimony. The government did not give the defendants a copy of the statement until after the agent testified at the trial.
• As such, the government’s omission of disclosing FC’s denial of knowledge of the envelope was insufficient to dismiss the indictment.

Final Decision

• The court found no prejudice and reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the indictment.

Anjali Agrawal, an undergraduate student at the NALSAR University of Law, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2022.