## Facts

- Federal authorities investigated members of the FALN for alleged bombings and related offenses.
- A grand jury charged Alejandrina Torres and co-defendants with seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384) and weapons/explosives offenses.
- Based on information from a cooperating participant and other investigation, the government sought judicial authorization to monitor two Chicago “safe houses” allegedly used to assemble and store explosives and to hold meetings.
- A judge authorized (1) Title III audio interception and (2) covert silent closed-circuit video surveillance inside the premises; the video had no sound, while audio was recorded on separate authorized equipment.
- The video captured activity including bomb assembly and related preparatory conduct inside the safe houses.
- On the eve of trial, the district court suppressed the videotapes and derivative evidence, reasoning there was no statutory or other legal basis for authorizing covert video surveillance; it did not suppress the Title III audio recordings.
- The United States appealed the suppression order under 18 U.S.C. § 3731.

## Issues

1. Whether covert, warrant-authorized silent video surveillance inside a private building may be used in a criminal investigation and introduced at trial.
2. Whether Title III’s regulation of electronic interception bars or otherwise invalidates silent video surveillance not expressly addressed by the statute.
3. Whether the video-surveillance orders satisfied Fourth Amendment requirements, including probable cause, particularity, temporal limits, necessity, and functional minimization.

## Decision

- The court reversed the suppression order and remanded.
- Covert silent video surveillance inside private premises is not categorically forbidden if conducted pursuant to a constitutionally valid warrant.
- Title III governs interception of oral and wire communications and does not, by its terms, regulate purely silent video surveillance.
- The surveillance orders were upheld under the Fourth Amendment based on the showings made and the limitations imposed.

## Legal Principles

- Covert video surveillance of the interior of private premises is a Fourth Amendment “search” and generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause and particularity.
- The absence of express statutory authorization in Title III for silent video does not, by itself, render such surveillance unlawful; legality is assessed directly under the Fourth Amendment.
- Given the intrusiveness of in-home video monitoring, courts should require strong judicial controls, including clear identification of the place to be monitored, the offenses under investigation, and meaningful time limits.
- Necessity and minimization concepts, while drawn from Title III’s framework, may inform Fourth Amendment scrutiny of video surveillance to reduce unnecessary intrusion and limit capture of nonrelevant activity.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that silent covert video surveillance inside private premises can be lawful when authorized by a warrant satisfying stringent Fourth Amendment requirements, and it reversed suppression of the videotapes because Title III did not bar the surveillance and the orders were constitutionally adequate.


United States v. Torres, 751 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1984)