malicious interference with satellite transmissions.
S. Rep. No. 541, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3560. This seems to suggest that the interference with satellite cable programming was an impetus to proposing the 1986 amendments to the Wiretap Law. However, although this quote from the Senate Report purports to include language in the law addressing "deliberate or malicious interference with satellite transmissions," this language does not appear in the final version of amended § 2512(1)(b). But this language does appear in 18 U.S.C. § 1367 (a) which states:
Whoever, without the authority of the satellite operator, intentionally or maliciously interferes with the authorized operation of a communications . . . satellite or obstructs or hinders any satellite transmission shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. (emphasis added).
Moreover, the legislative history to § 1367 refers to 1986 U.S.Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 3555, which is the Senate Report to the 1986 amendments to the Wiretap Law, where the language quoted above appears.
This further supports this Court's conclusion that the Government is mistaken when it argues that a purpose behind the 1986 amendments to § 2512(1)(b) was to address interference with satellite transmissions.
As a final matter, the Court addresses the remainder of Hochman's motion requesting the following: a bill of particulars; "early compliance by the Government with the Jencks Act/Brady/Agurs/Giglio"; compliance with Hochman's Rule 16 demand; and "notice of the Government's intention to use evidence which may be subject to a motion to suppress." In response to Hochman's requests, the Government notes that it has already made available all discovery materials, documents and other tangible evidence in its possession which "plainly afford the defendant all of the information he seeks." Government's Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Omnibus Motion at 17. Moreover, the Government notes that it is "aware of its continuing duty to disclose discoverable information," and if before or during trial, the Government should become aware "of any such information not previously disclosed, it will promptly notify defendant and/or the Court of such additional information or material." Id. at 18.
To the extent that the Government has disclosed all discoverable information within its knowledge or possession, Hochman's requests are denied. However, the Court advises the Government to continue to observe its duty to provide all discoverable information.
In sum, because the Court cannot with confidence conclude that the Wiretap Law sanctioned Hochman's conduct, the Court grants Hochman's motion to dismiss Count III and part of Count I of the superseding indictment. Hochman's additional requests for discovery information are denied.
Thomas C. Platt
Chief Judge, U.S.D.C.
Dated: Uniondale, New York
December 29, 1992