Forte was conducting his drug business at the Cafe Lido and Scioli-Turco VFW Post. CS-1 obtained this information through his/her personal observations at those locations and through conversation.
CS-3 reported to the government agents on his/her sales of P2P to Forte between April 1983 and November 1984. CS-3 had furnished reliable information for ten months, had testified before a grand jury, and had provided information which had resulted in the seizure of two gallons of P2P and $ 40,000.00 in cash.
CS-4 had been providing reliable information to the Pennsylvania Crime Commission for one year. During the week of May 6, 1985, CS-4 observed Forte meeting with a certain individual. That individual later told CS-4 that he/she had purchased methamphetamine from Forte at that May 6, 1985 meeting. CS-4 also saw Forte deliver a package to an individual referred to as "Angelo" during the week of May 6, 1985. During the week of May 31, 1985, CS-4 also observed a delivery of drugs to Forte from Angelo DiTullio.
On June 7, 1985, CS-5, who had given accurate information to the Philadelphia Police Department for three months, observed Angelo DiTullio deliver three pounds of a white powder substance to Forte.
CS-6 was a reliable source of information for the Philadelphia Police Department for six months and his/her information had given probable cause for two search warrants which resulted in the arrests of three people on methamphetamine charges. By April 1985, CS-6 was able to give a detailed description of how Forte conducted his drug sales.
Based upon the information received from these five reliable sources, there was a substantial basis supporting the court's initial finding that there was probable cause to believe that Forte was involved in the distribution of controlled substances. Gates, supra.
There was also probable cause to believe that the telephones that were the subject of the Order would be used to facilitate the distribution of controlled substances. CS-3, who provided information until November 1984, gave a basis to believe that Forte used the telephone to conduct drug deals, but his/her information did not specify any particular telephone. CS-4 observed Forte on the telephones in both the Cafe Lido and the VFW Post and during the week of May 6, 1985, heard Forte use the word "meth" on the VFW Post telephone shortly before an individual arrived to whom Forte sold drugs. CS-6 heard Forte talking on the Lido telephone to arrange drug transactions on May 4, 1985. This information from the informants was brought up to date by pen register information showing, inter alia, telephone calls from the VFW Post which Forte ran to telephone numbers belonging to Angelo DiTullio within two weeks of the filing of the wiretap application. Thus, there was probable cause to believe that Forte used the telephones at the VFW Post and the Lido Cafe to conduct his drug business.
Forte notes that pursuant to United States v. Armocida, supra, the burden is on the government to demonstrate what objectively reasonable steps it took to minimize the interception of non-pertinent conversations. Forte contends that a hearing is required as to minimization so that the government can sustain its burden. The government maintains that there is no need to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of minimization, unless the defense can make some showing to challenge the government's statistical analysis of intercepted telephone calls or to show the interception of non-pertinent conversations. United States v. Cirillo, 499 F.2d 872 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1056, 42 L. Ed. 2d 653, 95 S. Ct. 638, 95 S. Ct. 639 (1974).
Orders authorizing electronic surveillance must require that the order be executed "in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception. . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5). Whether the monitoring agents did a sufficient job of minimizing is to be decided by an objective review of their conduct without regard to their subjective intent. Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 56 L. Ed. 2d 168, 98 S. Ct. 1717 (1978).
"When the investigation is focusing on what is thought to be a widespread conspiracy more extensive surveillance may be justified in an attempt to determine the precise scope of the enterprise." Id. at 140. In Scott, the Court stated that "during the early stages of surveillance the agents may be forced to intercept all calls to establish categories of nonpertinent calls which will not be intercepted thereafter." Id. at 141. The Court in Scott also noted that:
Other situations may arise where patterns of nonpertinent calls do not appear. In these circumstances it may not be unreasonable to intercept almost every short conversation because the determination of relevancy cannot be made before the call is completed.