United States v. Violet Josephine Feldman, United States of America v. Irving Hyman

The defendants were charged below with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 (illegal gambling business) and of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting), were convicted in a non-jury trial and sentenced. Their appeals have been consolidated.

Each defendant made a motion to suppress evidence obtained by a court-authorized electronic surveillance of telephone calls. On appeal they urge that under 18 U.S.C. § 2516 and § 2518(l)(e) and (3)(c) the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.

We affirm.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

1. That the affidavits in support of the order for electronic surveillance failed to satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (l)(c) and (3)(c) that there be a showing that other investigative techniques had been tried and failed or that they would be reasonably unlikely to succeed if tried or would be too dangerous.

2. That the showing that confidential informants had refused to testify in court proceedings was insufficient.

3. That the affidavits in support of the order for electronic surveillance were defective in that they did not meet the two-pronged test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) and Spinelli v.…