◆ SpookStack

sit ih ‘ee Te the govertinent s position ware. correct, ' then ali al thar would be required in every case where a "clain” of ‘ii- | egal e electronic surveillance has been made would be a denial amdar Section 35%,. however, have almost all involved affi- a hee ae ee * ren : an . - +: EOP aLETES 5 GE deny the OccURESACE of the us sem r act, 1 rt of the statute | | pisveteavstrom’ the plain veaning of the lsnguage/that the govern ‘peat! s response - should go to the. existence of the unlawéul a astivity itself, “end should not be concefmedwith.s rhe = aN | \choussuch activity may have wich the proceedings? ap. issue. 7 | 2 7 of ‘the’ “Latter. is for the court to determine, Gace’ ‘the ‘govern ment has completed its foncticn under the statute. In re . “Testa, 486 FP. 2d 1013, 1016 es gir. wn Thus the denne - Nee “Astence of electronic surveillance® of the “witnesses, 3, and not_op 7 we ope i ord “the: relationship af _the affiant fo. ‘the ‘proceedings and. whether “he is in a poesen. to conclude that there could be no nexus- ae | _ between those proceedings: and ang ‘walavful Sctivity. | _— ( aentl tem emaeheeatn medina haaeas mums) of iby the “prosecutor that the proceedings have been tainted by be “Se wilavéul-astivity, regardless o£ whether he is in a competent ‘position to know whether unlawful activity has. in fact occurred “The: ‘cases which have evaluated the sufficiency of.a denial ~ f° i . ‘dayits, or other, documents ‘by pexgons_ in @ position to knew. [saben the. existence, 4 electronic surveillance, Most often,! Sn Re ne ee ST a ee 1 ‘the. denials contain the results | of a so-called agency dheck” iL “ofthe federal, agencies that customarily conduct electronic _SurveLllance, | Sees £.2., In. re Freedsan, 929 F. 2a 343 Ge . Sire 1226), and and Ja. sediom, 4 458. 2. 24. 468 G8 cir, 1972). aa y