Dahda v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Dahda v. United States
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: February 21, 2018
Decided: May 14, 2018
Outcome
Tenth Circuit affirmed
Vote
8 - 0 to affirm
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan[1]


Dahda v. United States is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on February 21, 2018. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Los Dahda was convicted on 15 criminal counts relating to the operation of a marijuana drug distribution network. At trial, the prosecution relied on evidence obtained through wiretaps on Dahda's phone and on the phones of his co-defendants. Dahda moved to suppress the evidence obtained via the wiretaps. Dahda argued that under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the wiretap orders were invalid because they applied outside of the district court's jurisdiction (that is, they extended beyond the state territory over which the district court had jurisdiction). The district court denied Dahda's motion. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed that the wiretap orders extended beyond the court's jurisdiction. However, the court affirmed the district court's denial. The court ruled that Title III's territorial requirement did not directly involve Congress' core concerns in creating Title III.[2]
  • The issue: "Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge's territorial jurisdiction."[3]
  • The outcome: In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Tenth Circuit.[4]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[2]

    Background

    Legal question

    This was a case about the validity of federal wiretap orders and the standard for suppression of evidence obtained through invalid orders under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.[2] The Tenth Circuit wrote:

    “ Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 permits courts to authorize law enforcement’s interception of telephone communications. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-20. Under Title III, a suppression remedy exists for communications that were intercepted (1) unlawfully, (2) based on a facially insufficient wiretap authorization order, or (3) not in conformity with the wiretap authorization order... Generally, this authority is limited to

    interceptions taking place within the judge’s “territorial jurisdiction.”[2][5]

    		”

    The question in this case was whether evidence must be suppressed when it is obtained through a wiretap order that authorizes interception of communications outside the judge's territorial jurisdiction.[2]

    Case background

    Dahda was convicted on 15 criminal counts relating to the operation of a marijuana drug distribution network.[2] In the course of the investigation that led to Dahda's arrest, law enforcement authorities obtained a number of wiretap orders from a Kansas federal district court. Those orders did not include geographical limits on law enforcement's interception authority.[2]

    Before trial, Dahda moved to suppress the evidence obtained through the wiretaps. He argued that the wiretap orders were invalid under Title III because they exceeded the judge's territorial jurisdiction. The district court denied Dahda's motion, and the prosecution introduced the evidence at trial. Dahda was eventually convicted on 15 criminal counts, and he appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.[6]

    Panel opinion

    The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed with Dahda that the wiretap orders were facially invalid because they exceeded the judge's territorial jurisdiction. A facially invalid order is one that does not comply with legal requirements. However, the court continued, "The defect does not necessarily require suppression." The court wrote that evidence obtained through a facially invalid wiretap order should only be suppressed "if the jurisdictional requirement is one of those statutory requirements that directly and substantially implement[s] the congressional intention."[2][7] In other words, the court wrote that the evidence should only be suppressed if the statute's jurisdictional limitation directly implicated Congress' central intent in creating Title III.[2]

    The court ruled that Congress' primary concerns in creating Title III were "protection of the privacy of oral and wire communications and establishment of a uniform basis for authorizing the interception of oral and wire communications."[2] The court further concluded that the territorial jurisdiction limitation on wiretap authority did not implicate either of those concerns. Therefore, the court ruled, "the facial defects in the nine wiretap authorization orders did not require suppression." The court affirmed the district court's denial of Dahda's motion to suppress the wiretap evidence.[2]

    Petitioner's challenge

    The petitioner challenged the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. He argued that the court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the wiretap orders.[3]

    Certiorari granted

    On July 3, 2017, the petitioner initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted petitioner's request for certiorari on October 16, 2017. Argument in the case was held on February 21, 2018.[3]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge's territorial jurisdiction."[3]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[8]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    Decision

    In a unanimous 8 - 0 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Tenth Circuit.[10]

    Opinion of the court

    Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion for the unanimous court. Breyer wrote that the court assumed that, as Dahda contended, the terms of the order exceeded the judge's territorial jurisdiction. But even if the terms exceeded the judge's territorial jurisdiction, Breyer reasoned, all other parts of the order were valid, and none of the intercepted communications that occurred outside the judge's jurisdiction were submitted as evidence during trial. Therefore, Breyer concluded, "the Orders were not insufficient on their face."[4][11]

    “ The Orders do contain a defect, namely, the sentence authorizing interception outside Kansas, which we set forth above. But not every defect results in an insufficiency. In that sentence, the District Court 'further' ordered that interception may take place 'outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court.' The sentence is without legal effect because, as the parties agree, the Orders could not legally authorize a wiretap outside the District Court’s 'territorial jurisdiction.' But, more importantly, the sentence itself is surplus. Its presence is not connected to any other relevant part of the Orders. Were we to remove the sentence from the Orders, they would then properly authorize wiretaps within the authorizing court’s territorial jurisdiction. As we discussed above, a listening post within the court’s territorial jurisdiction could lawfully intercept communications made to or from telephones located within Kansas or outside Kansas. Consequently, every wiretap that produced evidence introduced at the Dahdas’ trial was properly authorized under the statute.[4][5] ”


    Text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Because Justice Neil Gorsuch was on the Tenth Circuit panel that heard oral argument in this case, he took no part in the Supreme Court's consideration of the case.
    2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, United States v. Dahda (Opinion), April 4, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Supreme Court of the United States, Dahda v. United States (Question Presented), October 16, 2017
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 United States Supreme Court, "'Dahda v. United States Opinion," May 14, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ On appeal, Dahda raised a number of other arguments; however, the only issue before the United States Supreme Court is Dahda's motion to suppress based on the invalidity of the wiretap orders.
    7. ↑ Internal quotations omitted
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Dahda v. United States, argued February 21, 2018
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Dahda v. United States, argued February 21, 2018
    10. ↑ Because Justice Neil Gorsuch was on the Tenth Circuit panel that heard oral argument in this case, he took no part in the Supreme Court's consideration of the case.
    11. ↑ Internal citations omitted.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Dahda_v._United_States&oldid=8891809"