## Facts

- Federal agents obtained a Title III wiretap order for a telephone believed used in a narcotics conspiracy; the order required minimization of non-pertinent communications under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5).
- Agents intercepted virtually all calls on the line for about one month.
- Approximately 40% of intercepted calls were clearly narcotics-related; many other calls were very short (e.g., wrong numbers), ambiguous, or personal.
- Defendants were indicted on narcotics offenses and moved to suppress all intercepted communications and derivative evidence, alleging failure to minimize.
- The district court suppressed all interceptions, relying largely on the percentage of non-narcotics calls and finding no meaningful effort to minimize.
- The court of appeals reversed, directing an inquiry into whether interceptions were reasonable in light of the investigation and information available at the time, and holding suppression cannot turn on subjective intent.
- After convictions were affirmed, the Supreme Court granted review on the minimization issue.

## Issues

1. What standard governs compliance with Title III’s minimization requirement: objective reasonableness of the interceptions under the circumstances, or agents’ subjective intent/good faith?
2. Under the proper standard, did intercepting virtually all calls over the target phone for a month violate § 2518(5) so as to require suppression?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed (7–2) in an opinion by Justice Rehnquist.
- Compliance with § 2518(5) is evaluated by objectively assessing the reasonableness of agents’ actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them at the time, without regard to intent or motive.
- On this record, the interceptions did not constitute an unreasonable failure to minimize, and wholesale suppression of all conversations and derivative evidence was not justified.

## Legal Principles

- Title III minimization does not require interception of zero non-pertinent conversations; it requires conducting surveillance to minimize such interceptions.
- Minimization compliance is assessed through an objective reasonableness framework similar to Fourth Amendment analysis.
- A simple percentage comparison of pertinent versus non-pertinent calls is not, by itself, determinative; courts must consider context such as call length, ambiguity, investigative stage, and the nature of the suspected offense (including use of coded language).
- Suppression determinations must rest on the reasonableness of the actual interceptions, not on agents’ asserted good faith or subjective efforts to minimize.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Title III’s minimization requirement is governed by an objective reasonableness standard and, considering the short and ambiguous nature of many calls within a narcotics-conspiracy investigation, the wiretap monitoring did not warrant suppressing the intercepted communications or derivative evidence.


Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 (1978)