‘‘The role of the courts is to give legislative enactments a sensible and logical construction whenever it is possible to do so through the use of ordinary tools of reasoning and statutory construction, rather than to adopt a sterile and unreasonable interpreta- tion that Congress itself would clearly find unacceptable.’’
How later courts described this case
- ‘‘The role of the courts is to give legislative enactments a sensible and logical construction whenever it is possible to do so through the use of ordinary tools of reasoning and statutory construction, rather than to adopt a sterile and unreasonable interpreta- tion that Congress itself would clearly find unacceptable.’’
- [When Congress has not addressed an issue, courts] “must find that interpretation which can most fairly be said to be imbedded in the statute, in the sense of being most harmonious with its scheme and with the general purposes that Congress manifested.”
- "Congress's conclusion that the vague standards found in Berger and Katz offer inadequate protection for individual privacy is manifest in its enactment of statutory requirements that go substantially beyond the minimal constitutional constraints in those two cases."
- “[Section] 1809(a) is best understood as subjecting to criminal liability anyone who performs electronic surveillance as defined by FISA” without authorization (emphasis added)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND AMENDING OPINION.
Jan. 16, 1992.
Before: NORRIS, REINHARDT, and HALL, Circuit Judges.
Both the United States and the defendants-appellees petitioned for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en bane of our decision reversing the district court’s order suppressing evidence obtained through video surveillance of the defendants. We grant the petitions for rehearing. An order regarding the en banc suggestion will be issued subsequently.
In its brief on appeal, the government asserted that its application for authorization to conduct video surveillance of the defendants complied in all respects with Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520 (1988). The government now states in its petition for rehearing that although its video surveillance application “substantially complied” with the. requirements of Title I, it failed to seek authorization for that surveillance from any of the officials in the Department of Justice designated by that Title and instead obtained approval from a different Justice Department official. The defendants note that the district court never reached the question whether the government’s application complied with Title I, because it concluded that Title I prohibits domestic video surveillance. They ask that the matter be remanded for a finding on the issue of compliance. In light of the government’s concession, we agree that a remand is appropriate to resolve this issue. Accordingly, Part III of our opinion in this case, filed October 15, 1991, is vacated and the following is substituted in its place:
Judge Hall would reverse the district court for the reasons stated in her concurring and dissenting opinion, filed along with the majority opinion.