United States v. Caceres case brief summary, 1979
a) The
taxpayer met with a Government agent in connection with an audit of his
income tax returns. He offered the agent a personal settlement in
exchange for a favorable resolution of the audit. Three subsequent
conversations between the taxpayer and agent were monitored by the
Government through electronic surveillance. Two of the conversations
were not monitored in accordance with Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
regulations requiring Justice Department approval. Criminal charges were
filed against the taxpayer for bribing the agent. The taxpayer's motion
to suppress the taped conversations was granted. On appeal, a reversal
was entered as to the third tape on the basis that adequate
authorization had been obtained. Certiorari was granted to decide
whether the evidence obtained in violation of the IRS regulations was
admissible in the taxpayer's criminal trial. The Court held that all
taped conversations were admissible against the taxpayer at his criminal
trial because none of his constitutional rights were violated, either
by the actual recording or by the agency violation of its own
regulations, and the exclusionary rule was therefore not applicable.
b) ∆ was seeking to use the exclusionary rule
(1) Deterrence concern at work here – afraid that agencies won’t make any more rules if they are punished for not following them
c) Marshall’s point (dissent) – government must play by the rules
No comments:
Post a Comment