United States v. Edward A. Daniel

Edward A. Daniel appeals his conviction of distributing a controlled substance. He claims that the trial court should have suppressed conversations recorded without a warrant between him and an informant because the admission of such recordings would have been illegal under Alaska law. He also asserts other grounds for the suppression of evidence.

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 forbids any interception of wire communications except inter alia, “for a person acting under color of law . . . where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2)(c). An “investigative or law enforcement official” who has thereby properly obtained the contents of a wire communication may use such contents “to the extent such use is appropriate to the proper performance of his official duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (2). The Act also permits an “investigative or law enforcement official” to disclose such contents to “another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer…