Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. John That Luong, AKA Tony Johnny Thang Cuong Quoc Dao John Dao Duong Thanh Ah Sinh That Luong Ah Sing, United States of America v. Huy Chi Luong, AKA Chi Fei Jimmy Luong, United States of America v. Hoang Ai Le, AKA Ah Hoang, United States of America v. Mady Chan
Citations: 471 F.3d 1107; 40 Communications Reg. (P&F) 42; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 31752Docket: 01-10468
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 25, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
John That Luong, Huy Chi Luong, Hoang Ai Le, and Mady Chan appeal their convictions related to a criminal enterprise involved in robberies of computer companies and heroin trafficking. The central issue is whether the district court in the Northern District of California had jurisdiction to authorize the interception of communications from John Luong's mobile phone, which was registered outside the court's jurisdiction but monitored within it. The court held that jurisdiction existed because the intercepted communications were first heard within the district. A judge in the Northern District issued an interception order for Luong's mobile phone on August 1, 1995, based on a comprehensive affidavit from FBI Special Agent Carol Lee, which outlined the need for a wiretap due to the ineffectiveness of traditional investigative methods. The affidavit confirmed that all intercepted calls would be processed in San Francisco, regardless of their origin. The court reviewed the district's statutory interpretation de novo, affirming that the statute allows for interception authorization within the court's territorial jurisdiction as per 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3). The appellants contend that interception of communications occurs solely at the location of the telephone, not at a separate listening post set up by the government. The definition of 'interception' under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4) encompasses the acquisition of wire, electronic, or oral communication through electronic or mechanical devices but does not specify the location of interception or the possibility of multiple interception points. The court interprets interception as occurring both at the location of the tapped phone and where law enforcement first hears the communication. This view aligns with rulings from various circuit courts, including the Second, Seventh, and Fifth Circuits, which assert that interception happens at the site of the tapped phone and the listening post. The district court held jurisdiction to authorize the wiretap of Luong's mobile phone, as all intercepted conversations were first heard at a listening post in San Francisco, California, within the Northern District's jurisdiction, despite the phone’s Eastern District area code. Agent Lee's affidavit confirmed this, establishing that wiretap evidence was properly authorized. Consequently, the district court's denial of the motion to suppress the wiretap evidence was affirmed. The court also has jurisdiction over final judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will address other issues raised by the appellants in a separate unpublished memorandum.