United States v. Nietupski

731 F. Supp. 881, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2337, 1990 WL 17748
CourtDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois
DecidedFebruary 28, 1990
Docket89-30070
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 731 F. Supp. 881 (United States v. Nietupski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Nietupski, 731 F. Supp. 881, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2337, 1990 WL 17748 (C.D. Ill. 1990).

Opinion

OPINION

RICHARD MILLS, District Judge:

Secretly recorded conversations.

Wiretapping?

Thomas J. Nietupski has been charged with conspiracy to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance, specifically methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The conspiracy involved over 20 individuals and touched on several states. One of Nietupski’s co-conspirators — and a ringleader — was his ex-wife, Nancy Nietup-ski.

During the latter part of 1987 Nancy recorded several conversations between herself and Defendant. In these conversations, Nancy and Defendant discussed their drug dealing activities. Nancy made the recordings by placing a tape recorder in her suit jacket pocket and going to Defen *882 dant’s home in Decatur, Illinois. Defendant was unaware that the conversations were being recorded.

Nancy kept the tapes in her home in Pana, Illinois, and claims that a third conspirator, Cindylou Matthews, stole the tapes from her home and took them to Matthews’ home. 1 The Government seized the tapes from Matthews’ residence during the execution of a search warrant on July 18, 1989.

The Government had the tapes transcribed and will seek to introduce the transcript of at least one of the tapes into evidence at Defendant’s trial. A copy of the transcript is attached to this opinion as an appendix.

Defendant has moved to suppress the tapes under 18 U.S.C. § 2515 as having been made in violation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-21. This Court held a hearing on Defendant’s motion on February 20, 1990, at which Nancy testified. 2 Nancy stated that she made the tapes to obtain “leverage” over the Defendant. During her testimony, Nancy claimed that everything on the tapes was a lie. Specifically, Nancy stated that she lied about being involved in drug dealing to get the Defendant to come back with a bigger lie regarding his own involvement in drugs in an effort to “top” Nancy’s story.

Defendant’s motion to suppress raises two issues for our consideration. First, whether the tapes fall within the parameters of the Federal Wiretapping Act. Second, assuming that the act applies to the tapes, whether the act requires us to suppress the tapes.

Section 2511(1)(a) of the act makes it a federal offense for any person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication except as allowed by other provisions of the statute. Section 2511(2)(d) then provides that

[i]t shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted, for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) (emphasis added). The act concludes that any communication intercepted in violation of the act may not be received in evidence in any “trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court,....” 18 U.S.C. § 2515.

The issue presently before this Court is whether the interception of the oral communication by Nancy Nietupski violated the act. This question necessarily turns upon Nietupski’s motive in intercepting the communication. Specifically, whether at the time she recorded the conversations with Defendant she did so “for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State.” Defendant argues that she did in fact record the conversation for an unlawful purpose — extortion or blackmail.

To bring the tapes within the purview of the Federal Wiretapping Act, Defendant must do more than merely assert that Nancy recorded the conversations for a criminal or tortious purpose. “A party attempting to suppress a recording bears the burden of proving that it was made for an impermissible purpose.” Traficant v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Serv., 884 F.2d 258, 266 (6th Cir.1989); United States v. Truglio, 731 F.2d 1123, 1131 (4th *883 Cir.) (defendant has burden by preponderance of the evidence), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 862, 105 S.Ct. 197, 83 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); United States v. Phillips, 540 F.2d 319, 326 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1000, 97 S.Ct. 530, 50 L.Ed.2d 611 (1976). Defendant argues that this Court is required to conclude that Nancy made the recordings for an impermissible purpose — blackmail— because the only evidence presented at the hearing was Nancy’s testimony that that indeed was her goal. We do not agree. Nancy admitted that the tapes were never actually used in any unlawful scheme and that she had never actually threatened to use them. In fact, Defendant was never aware of the tapes’ existence prior to their seizure by the Government. See Traficant, 884 F.2d at 266.

We also must conclude that Nancy was not a credible witness. Her story that everything on the tapes was a lie is absolutely incredible and defies belief. The transcript of the tape attached to this opinion as an appendix reveals that the discussions regarding drug dealing were specific, detailed, and factually supported. In addition, the discussions referred to other members of the conspiracy which have been indicted along with Defendant and his ex-wife. Nancy could very well have made the tapes for the purpose of turning them over to the Government if she were caught in the hope of obtaining a better deal for herself. This clearly would not be an improper purpose and in effect could be said to be laudable in that she would be aiding law enforcement to apprehend her co-conspirators. Therefore, because we find that Nancy Nietupski’s testimony was not credible and that no evidence supports her statement that she made the tapes for the purpose of blackmailing Defendant, we must hold that Defendant has failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the tapes were made for an illegal or improper purpose.

Even if we were to assume that Defendant had met his burden, we would decline to suppress the tapes under § 2515.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Rosenberg
85 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D. New Jersey, 2000)
Perry v. Maryland
741 A.2d 1162 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1999)
People v. Murtha
14 Cal. App. 4th 1112 (California Court of Appeal, 1993)
United States v. Mavroules
813 F. Supp. 115 (D. Massachusetts, 1993)
People v. Otto
831 P.2d 1178 (California Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
731 F. Supp. 881, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2337, 1990 WL 17748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nietupski-ilcd-1990.