Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, E.D

September 7, 1982


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Prentice H. Marshall, District Judge.


In this criminal case, defendants are charged in a multi-count indictment with crimes including conspiracy to bribe a United States Senator in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1) and 371 (1976). That fact would pique the public's interest. Moreover, the defendants include the President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America ("Teamsters"), two defendants said by the government to be involved in organized crime, and two officials of the Teamsters' Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund who were allegedly part of a scheme to defraud the Pension Fund, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (1976). If that were not enough to make the matter of some considerable public interest and import, this case involves what appears to be the most pervasive wiretap in the history of the federal wiretap statute, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 2510-20 (1976 & Supp. II 1978) ("Title III").

Thus, the case has generated a substantial amount of public interest. Understandably, the publicity has distressed defendants, who fear that it may prejudice potential jurors and jeopardize defendants' right to a fair trial.

On March 22, 1982, we ruled that defendants would receive an evidentiary hearing on certain aspects of their allegations that the electronic surveillance involved in this case was unlawful. A four week evidentiary hearing followed, in which defendants ventilated their charges that the government's surveillance was tainted by various forms of misconduct, including deliberate misrepresentations made to former Chief Judge Parsons of this court in order to obtain authorization to conduct the surveillance, and that the surveillance unreasonably intruded on defendants' privacy. Allegedly to minimize the adverse publicity which they expected the hearing would generate, defendants moved that the hearing be closed to the public. We denied the motion, but ruled that Title III granted defendants a protected interest in preventing the public disclosure of their electronically intercepted conversations prior to a determination that the interception was lawful. Therefore, we ruled that surveillance materials (applications, transcripts, logs, summaries, etc.) would be received under seal as exhibits and would not be disclosed in open court. This procedure, we believed, struck an appropriate balance between the public's interest in attending judicial proceedings and defendants' protected privacy interests under Title III. Accord, United States v. Cianfrani, 573 F.2d 835, 855-60 (3d Cir. 1978). Our ruling was affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Dorfman, No. 82-1462 (7th Cir. Mar. 25, 1982). During the hearing, we adhered to the sealing procedure, and the bulk of the nearly 200 exhibits introduced into evidence at the hearing were not made public.*fn1

On June 1, 1982 we ruled that virtually all of the electronic surveillance said by the government to be relevant to the merits of the case was lawful. On July 9, 1982, defendants moved the court to reconsider its ruling. We denied the motion on July 13, 1982. Appeals have been taken from those orders by defendants and by certain non-defendants whose intercepted conversations will be offered at trial.

Now, Chicago Tribune Company, William B. Crawford, Jr., CBS, Incorporated, Dow Jones and Company, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., National Broadcasting Company, and Field Enterprises, Incorporated, all of whom have earlier been granted leave to intervene in the case on defendants' motion to close the suppression hearing, have filed a motion in which they request that the court unseal the exhibits admitted into evidence under seal during the suppression hearing and grant them permission to inspect and copy the exhibits. Defendants oppose the motion. The motion is also opposed by non-defendants David Dorfman, Sol Schwartz, Morris Weiser, Morton J. Harris, and Ira Burman, all of whom were intercepted during the course of the government's surveillance and argue that their privacy rights would be infringed if the court permits the seal to be removed and grants the public access to the exhibits.

All parties recognize that there is a common law right to inspect and copy judicial records. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1311, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (dictum); United States v. Edwards, 672 F.2d 1289, 1292-93 (7th Cir. 1982); Belo Broadcasting Corp. v. Clark, 654 F.2d 423, 429-30 (5th Cir. 1981); In re National Broadcasting Co. (Jenrette), 653 F.2d 609, 612 (D.C. Cir. 1981); United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814, 819 (3d Cir. 1981); In re National Broadcasting Co. (Myers), 635 F.2d 945, 949-50 (2d Cir. 1980); United States v. Dean, 527 F. Supp. 413 (S.D.Ga. 1981); United States v. Carpentier, 526 F. Supp. 292, 295-96 (E.D.N.Y. 1981).*fn2 "What transpires in the court room is public property." Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 1254, 91 L.Ed. 1546 (1947). Exhibits introduced at an evidentiary hearing are part of the record of a case. See United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 299 (D.C. Cir. 1980); United States v. Mitchell, 551 F.2d 1252, 1259-60 (D.C. Cir. 1976), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); Fed.R.App.P. 10(a) ("The original papers and exhibits filed in the district court . . . shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases."). Thus, the common law right of access extends to exhibits used in an evidentiary hearing, especially when they are relied upon by the court in reaching its decision, as were the transcripts and other surveillance materials at issue here. See United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 217 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Wilk v. American Medical Association, 635 F.2d 1295, 1299 n. 7 (7th Cir. 1980); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., 529 F. Supp. 866, 897-901 (E.D.Pa. 1981); Hearst Corp. v. Vogt, 62 A.D.2d 840, 406 N.Y.S.2d 567 (1978). See generally Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981).

While there may be an exception to the common law right of access where the documents sought are essentially irrelevant to the issues at the evidentiary hearing, see United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980), that is not the case here. The exhibits to which access is sought were critically important at the suppression hearing. The alleged governmental misconduct at issue in the hearing involved the representations made to Chief Judge Parsons at the time the government obtained authority to conduct electronic surveillance, as well as the subsequent conduct of the surveillance. All of this activity was memorialized in the exhibits. In fact, the oral testimony which was public was often little more than the witnesses' attempts to explain what was contained in the sealed exhibits, though usually in cryptic terms so that the substance of the sealed exhibits would not be publicly revealed. The pivotal significance of the exhibits is perhaps best reflected in our opinion of June 1, which cites no less than 43 exhibits. Moreover, we referred to virtually all of the exhibits in the process of preparing the opinion. Judge MacKinnon has aptly stated the importance of exhibits in a case such as this.

  The record of a trial is no less a part of the
  proceeding than the actual examination of
  witnesses. Where, as here, the controversy
  presented to the court was limited to a single
  major issue — the validity of the search — and
  where the defendants contended that their claim of
  invalidity was proven by all the documents they
  caused to be admitted into evidence, making the
  documents available in the public record becomes
  even more important. Absent such access, the
  public's opportunity to assess the validity of the
  court[']s ruling as applied to these criminal
  defendants would be virtually nonexistent. [ ] The
  central issue in the suppression proceedings . . .
  would be obscured from the public and the
  press. . . .

    The requirement for public disclosure of the
  evidentiary record in a court proceeding which
  results in a judicial ruling naturally flows from
  the constitutional requirement that the trial be
  public. Even though a motion to suppress may not be
  a "trial" there is no difference in the ultimate
  requirement that the record be public. A judicial
  proceeding cannot be said to be public if the
  public be denied access to the evidence admitted as
  relevant to the issues before the court. It is as
  important to public disclosure of judicial
  proceedings that the public be able to read written
  evidence in the record as it is that they be able
  to hear oral testimony.

United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (dissenting opinion) (emphasis in original).
*fn3 Here too, defendants contend that virtually all the evidence is relevant because it demonstrates, through its volume as well as its substance, the impermissibly broad scope of the government's surveillance, and because it shows that the government misled Chief Judge Parsons when it obtained authorization to conduct the surveillance. The exhibits were plainly central to the suppression hearing,*fn4 and the common law right of access is applicable to them.

Defendants and non-defendants opposing disclosure claim that the common law right of access has no application to exhibits received in evidence under seal, relying on a footnote from the Second Circuit's decision in Myers.*fn5

  If, for justifiable reasons, a particular item
  were entered into evidence under seal, the
  presumption [in favor of access] would obviously
  not apply, because for that item of evidence, the
  session of court was not public.

635 F.2d at 952 n. 4 (dictum).*fn6 However, defendants overlook the qualification contained in the Myers footnote, that the evidence be received under seal "for justifiable reasons." If there is no longer adequate justification to maintain the seal, then presumably the Myers dictum is no bar to disclosure. More fundamentally, however, if the common law presumptive right of access were to vanish merely because of the presence of a seal on evidence, serious first amendment problems would be created. We construe the common law right of access to require an adequate justification for maintaining a seal on the exhibits subsequent to a determination that the surveillance in this case was lawful, since to do otherwise would violate the first amendment.*fn7

Until recently, the question of whether the public enjoyed a first amendment right of access to judicial proceedings was a relatively open one. In a series of cases involving access to prisons, the Supreme Court declined to recognize any special right of access held by the press superior to the rights of the general public. See Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2588, 57 L.Ed.2d 553 (1978); Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843, 94 S.Ct. 2811, 41 L.Ed.2d 514 (1974); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974). However, the Court, in dicta, had hinted that some access right existed, noting that "without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2656, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972). The Court's first encounter with a first amendment claim involving access to judicial proceedings came in Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979). There, by a 5-4 vote, the Court affirmed an order closing a pretrial suppression hearing to the public. The bulk of Justice Stewart's majority opinion addresses the question whether the closure offends the sixth amendment's guarantee of a public trial. However, Justice Stewart also briefly dealt with the first amendment, stating that while he was willing to assume that the closure order implicated the first amendment, the courts below had properly balanced the defendant's right to a fair trial which would be endangered by a public suppression hearing against the first amendment interests of the public. See id. at 392-93, 99 S.Ct. at 2911. One of the members of the majority, Justice Powell, explicitly stated that in his view the first amendment protects public access to pretrial suppression hearings. See id. at 397-98, 99 S.Ct. at 2914 (Powell, J., concurring). But see id. at 404-06, 99 S.Ct. at 2918-19 (Rehnquist, J.,concurring). In light of the majority's unclear holding on the first amendment question, considerable confusion was generated by the opinion. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 602, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 2841, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) (Blackmun, J., concurring in the judgment).

The access issue returned to the Court in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980). While seven members of the Court expressed their view that the first amendment sharply limits the ability of courts to close criminal trials to the public,*fn8 no majority opinion was issued. Chief Justice Burger's plurality opinion began by noting that there is a long history of public access to criminal trials, as opposed to suppression hearing. See 448 U.S. at 563-69, 100 S.Ct. at 2820-23. This tradition was "no quirk of history", but essential as insurance that trials are conducted fairly and the public can observe and understand the criminal justice system, id. at 569-73, 100 S.Ct. at 2823. The Chief Justice went on to state that the right to discuss the criminal justice system which is protected by the first amendment would be "eviscerated" if the public could not observe and hence comprehend the workings of that system. Thus, a necessary corollary of the right to discuss the criminal justice system is the right to attend criminal proceedings, id. at 575-80, 100 S.Ct. at 2826-29. He concluded, "Absent an overriding interest articulated in findings, the trial of a criminal case must be open to the public." Id. at 581, 100 S.Ct. at 2829 (footnote omitted).

Chief Justice Burger's approach in Richmond Newspapers relied heavily on the history of access to public trials; a history the Court had found lacking in the context of pretrial suppression hearings in Gannett. However, Justice Brennan, concurring in the judgment, announced a less tradition-bound approach. Justice Brennan wrote that the first amendment plays a structural role in our constitutional scheme, by guaranteeing self government through a process of constitutionally protected public discussion and debate. Id. at 587, 100 S.Ct. at 2833. "Implicit in this structural role is not only `the principle antecedent that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,' but the antecedent assumption that valuable public debate — as well as other civil behavior — must be informed." Id. (footnote and citation omitted) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 720, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). Access to information is accordingly required if the structural function of the first amendment is to be protected and public debate is to be informed. Id. 448 U.S. at 588-89, 100 S.Ct. at 2833-34. In Justice Brennan's view, the first amendment guarantees access where required in order to protect the public's interest in obtaining information about and hence meaningful democratic control over a particular governmental process. Id. at 589, 100 S.Ct. at 2834. In the context of a criminal trial, Justice Brennan believed that publicity serves to vindicate the public interest in the trial process, since openness helps maximize public confidence in the criminal justice system, ensures that the public can critically understand the way the law operates and correct abuses in the process, and aids in accurate factfinding. Id. at 593-97, 100 S.Ct. at 2836-38.

The Court's most recent encounter with the question of access to criminal proceedings came in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982). In Globe Newspaper, the Court struck down a Massachusetts statute which required closure of sex-offense trials during the testimony of minor victims. The Court relied much less on Chief Justice Burger's tradition-bound approach in Richmond Newspapers, and much more on Justice Brennan's structural approach.*fn9 The Court began by noting that the first amendment right of access is designed "to ensure that the individual citizen can effectively participate in and contribute to our republican form of self-government," 102 S.Ct. at 2619, and "to ensure that this constitutionally protected `discussion of governmental affairs' is an informed one." Id. (quoting Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 1436, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966)). The Court concluded that "in the broadest terms, public access to criminal trials permits the public to participate in and serve as a check upon the criminal process — an essential component in our structure of self-government." Id. 102 S.Ct. at 2620 (footnote omitted). Globe Newspaper signals the adoption of a structural approach to the right of access.*fn10

Applying the structural approach to the type of pretrial suppression hearing had in this case, we conclude that the first amendment creates a presumptive right of public access to the proceeding at issue here. Chief Judge Seitz, writing for the Third Circuit, recently canvassed the reasons why this is so.

  Both the Supreme Court and this Court have
  recognized that a pretrial criminal hearing often
  is the most critical stage of a criminal
  proceeding. Decisions reached at the pretrial
  hearings often determine whether the defendant or
  the Government wants to proceed to trial. In many
  cases, the pretrial hearing is the only adversary
  proceeding the accused will have in resolving his
  case. Indeed, most criminal prosecutions consist
  solely of pretrial procedures. The public's vital
  interest in evaluating the public officials who
  work in the criminal justice system cannot be
  fully vindicated unless the public and press can
  attend pretrial hearings. Otherwise, much of the
  work of prosecutors and trial judges may go

    Of equal importance, pretrial hearings in
  criminal cases typically involve objections to
  the propriety of police conduct. In fact, the
  pretrial hearing may be the only point in the
  trial process at which the conduct of law
  enforcement officers is at issue. Because such
  conduct frequently occurs outside the public
  view, beneficial public scrutiny may never take
  place if not at the hearing itself.

United States v. Criden, 675 F.2d 550, 556-57 (3d Cir. 1982).

The fact that this case involves charges of government misconduct in conducting electronic surveillance magnifies the structural interest in public access to the hearing at which these charges were aired.

    These interests [in disclosure] are
  strengthened where the interception of private
  conversations by surreptitious means is involved.
  Congress has recognized the need to protect the
  private conversations of all citizens from
  electronic interception except in the most
  limited and controlled circumstances. Where there
  are allegations that the police have violated
  Congress's commands in this area, all citizens
  have a strong interest in learning the facts.
  This is especially true since electronic
  surveillance, like much other police conduct,
  takes place in secret, veiled from the view of
  ordinary citizens. Suppression proceedings that
  test the legality of police conduct in recording
  the private conversations of citizens should be
  subject to the public trial requirement.

United States v. Cianfrani, 573 F.2d 835, 850 (3d Cir. 1978). If suppression hearings were closed, the public would be deprived of the opportunity to evaluate the workings of Title III and the courts' rulings on charges of governmental misconduct, a result which would subvert the structural function of the first amendment by precluding informed public discussion and debate on these issues of critical public import. Moreover, in the broadest sense, defendants also have an interest in public access. In the long run, perhaps the most fundamental guarantee that electronic surveillance will not be abused is the protection offered by public scrutiny which can only be gained if access to suppression hearings is permitted. We believe the first amendment protects the public's right of access to the pretrial suppression hearing held in this case.*fn11

Since the common law right of access is designed to serve the same interests of the public as is the first amendment right of access, see United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814, 820-23 (3d Cir. 1981), the common law right should be construed no more narrowly than the constitutional right. Under the first amendment test enunciated in Globe Newspaper, "[w]here, as in the present case, the State attempts to deny the right of access in order to inhibit the disclosure of sensitive information, it must be shown that the denial is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." 102 S.Ct. at 2620.*fn12 In order to avoid constitutional infirmity, we construe the common law right to extend to the exhibits at issue, even though they were properly received in evidence under seal,*fn13 and will require a justification for maintaining the seal sufficiently weighty to pass constitutional muster.*fn14

We now turn to the question whether maintaining the seal on the exhibits is justified by a compelling interest, and whether the seal is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

Defendants and non-defendants resisting disclosure forward two interests which they claim justify denial of the pending motion. The first is the protection of defendants' constitutional right to a fair trial. The Constitution requires trial courts to take steps sufficient to ensure that potential jurors are not prejudiced by pretrial publicity. Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 2904, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979). All parties agree that protecting defendants from prejudicial pretrial publicity constitutes a compelling interest sufficient to justify a denial of public access to the exhibits. The parties disagree, however, as to whether disclosure of the exhibits would create a sufficient risk of prejudice to justify denial of the motion.

The risk of prejudicial publicity justifies a denial of access only where it is demonstrated that there is a substantial risk of unduly prejudicial publicity which is likely to bias potential jurors. The risk must be demonstrable, not speculative. In re National Broadcasting Co. (Jenrette), 653 F.2d 609, 615-16 (D.C. Cir. 1981); United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814, 827-28 (3d Cir. 1981); United States v. Mitchell, 551 F.2d 1252, 1261-62 (D.C. Cir. 1976), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). See also In re San Juan Star Co., 662 F.2d 108 (1st Cir. 1981); Kansas City Star Co. v. Fossey, 230 Kan. 240, 630 P.2d 1176 (1981). "[A] court may deny access, but only on the basis of articulable facts known to the court, not on the basis of hypothesis or conjecture." United States v. Edwards, 672 F.2d 1289, 1294 (7th Cir. 1982).

The bulk of the sealed material relating to the surveillance orders of January 29, March 1, March 30 and April 7, 1979, and the fruits thereof, does not speak to the offenses charged in the indictment. Some of it does purport to detail the alleged relationship between the defendants and organized crime, but this has been publicly described in our decision of June 1, 1982. Under these circumstances, the immediate release of the materials relating to the January 29 — April 7 orders is not inappropriate.

The materials relating to the April 28, 1979 order are of a different nature. While they were presented to us during the suppression hearing they were only tangentially involved. We did not describe them in our June 1 decision. They speak to the subject matter of the indictment. Access to the materials should be postponed, since given the pattern of pretrial publicity associated with this case, there is a demonstrable, immediate and substantial probability that this material, if disclosed, would find its way to potential jurors. See Sacramento Bee v. United States District Court, 656 F.2d 477 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 2257, 72 L.Ed.2d 861 (1982); Belo Broadcasting Corp. v. Clark, 654 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. 1981).

However, we must ensure that the postponement of access is no broader than necessary to protect defendants' right to a fair trial. Under the circumstances, the seal need be maintained only until the jury is impaneled and sworn. This, in our judgment, is the type of case where once the jury is sworn and admonished to avoid exposure to publicity regarding the case, the defendants' right to a fair trial will have been adequately protected and the seal will no longer be required.

  [T]he weight to be attributed pendency of trial
  depends upon the particular circumstances. In the
  usual case, the jury will have been impaneled,
  the evidence ruled admissible and presented in
  court, and the jury admonished to avoid exposure
  to reports of the trial in the news media. Under
  such circumstances, a court would ordinarily
  conclude that the possibility that the jurors,
  despite the admonition, would be unduly
  prejudiced because of publicity resulting from
  the inspection and copying of evidence which has
  already been held admissible is sufficiently
  remote as to pose no significant risk to a fair
  trial. In contrast, where an extraordinary level
  of publicity has made exceptionally difficult the
  selection of a jury and has created a circus
  atmosphere around the trial, cf. Sheppard v.
  Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 [86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d
  600] (1966) . . . denial of access may be
  warranted. We can state no hard and fast
  rule. . . . We note, however, that the problem of a
  jury interpreting the granting of access as
  judicial endorsement of those items of evidence can
  normally be resolved by firmly instructing the jury
  that the court expresses no opinion on the merits
  of particular testimony or exhibits and by
  cautioning them to avoid news reports of the trial.
  We emphasize again the strong presumption in favor
  of access.

United States v. Edwards, 672 F.2d 1289, 1296 (7th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). While these exhibits do contain information which will be referred to at trial, we do not believe it is so inflammatory that a firm admonition to the jurors to avoid publicity will be insufficient to protect defendants' right to a fair trial. Moreover, the jurors will have been subjected to what the court fully intends to be a searching and careful voir dire, which is a powerful device for screening out potential jurors who have been or are likely to be prejudiced by publicity. See Jenrette, 653 F.2d at 617; Criden, 648 F.2d at 827-28; Myers, 635 F.2d at 953-54. See also Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 563-65, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 2804-05, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976). While this case has generated some troubling publicity, it has not proceeded in a circus atmosphere similar to that of the Sheppard case. We believe a careful voir dire coupled with a firm admonition to the jury will protect defendants' rights. Once that has occurred, we see no justification for maintaining the seal in order to protect defendants' right to a fair trial. This is especially true given the strong first amendment interest that would be jeopardized if disclosure were delayed until after trial. We should not blind ourselves to the realities of the news media. The media is concerned primarily with contemporaneous events. If disclosure is delayed until after trial, public and media interest in this case will have lessened, and in all likelihood the electronic surveillance in this case will not receive effective public scrutiny. The first amendment demands that the press not be silenced at the time it can be most effective. See Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 219, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 1437, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966). Strong considerations support disclosure of this material prior to the point at which public and media interest in this case has faded.

The second consideration which defendants and non-defendants resisting disclosure argue justifies a denial of access is the protection of the privacy of persons intercepted during the surveillance in this case. It is true that some of the exhibits contain transcripts of private conversations. It is also true that the protection of privacy was a major concern of Congress in enacting Title III, see, e.g., Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 48, 92 S.Ct. 2357, 2361, 33 L.Ed.2d 179 (1972), and that under certain circumstances protection of privacy may be a sufficiently compelling interest to justify a denial of access. For example, in In re KSTP Television, 504 F. Supp. 360 (D.Minn. 1980), the court denied a request for access to a videotaped pictures of a rape victim bound and helpless immediately prior to her rape, in order to protect the victim's privacy. No similarly compelling privacy interests are present here, however. The exhibits do not contain intimate conversation; most of the transcripts involve business conversations between the defendants and their associates.*fn15 To the extent privacy interests are at stake here, they are fully protected by our prior ruling on the motion to suppress, in which we suppressed interceptions which fell into a pattern of surveillance which was unduly intrusive of the interceptees' privacy. See United States v. Dorfman, 542 F. Supp. 345, 393-97 & n. 58 (N.D.Ill. 1982). The press and public will not receive access to that material.*fn16 Privacy interests in the remaining material must be considered to be diminished, in that those conversations, in our judgment, were lawfully overheard by government agents. Cf. United States v. Dorfman, 690 F.2d 1217 at 1227-1229, (7th Cir. 1982) (non-defendants' privacy interests are adequately protected by ruling on defendants' motions to suppress). In any event, because the exhibits do not contain material of a highly intimate or personal nature, the protection of privacy is not an interest sufficiently compelling to justify maintenance of the seal. See Jenrette, 653 F.2d at 619-20; Criden, 648 F.2d at 829; Mitchell, 551 F.2d at 1263-64.*fn17

Intervenors' motion to unseal exhibits admitted into evidence at the suppression hearing in this case is granted in part and denied in part in accord with the views expressed herein. The parties are directed to submit a draft order in conformity herewith.*fn18

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.