Full opinion text
HAROLD A. ACKERMAN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On August 19, 1985, a Federal grand jury, sitting in the District of New Jersey, returned a 12-count indictment against 26 individuals charging conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d), and conducting a racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 United States Code Section 1962(c), which included conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of 18 United States Code Section 2 and 21 United States Code Section 841; conduct of an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 United States Code Section 1955; mail fraud in violation of 18 United States Code Sections 1341 and 2; wire fraud in violation of 18 United States Code Sections 1343 and 2; Hobbs Act extortion in violation of 18 United States Code Sections 1951 and 2; extortionate credit transactions in violation of 18 United States Code Sections 892-894 and 2; and extortion in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5. This matter is before me today on the government’s motion for revocation of the release orders entered for defendants Anthony Accetturo, Michael Taccetta, Michael Perna and Thomas Ricciardi under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, Public Law No. 98-473, Sections 202 to 210. 98 Statutes 1976-87, (codified at 18 United States Code Sections 3141-3150). II. THE INDICTMENT Count 1 of the indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to commit a lengthy list of racketeering acts under the aegis of the Taccetta Group Enterprise, an organized crime group. The Taccetta Group Enterprise allegedly operated from 1976 to July, 1985 to commit crimes of loansharking, extortion, counterfeit credit card scams, illegal gambling schemes and extortionate business takeovers through the use of violence, threats, and physical and economic intimidation. The indictment describes the Taccetta group enterprise as a hierarchical body which depends for its existence on a carefully designed organizational structure and internal discipline. Moreover, the indictment alleges that the hierarchical scheme governs the conduct of members, dictates their respective statuses and provides an overall scheme for the commission of offenses on a collaborative and systematic basis. The indictment also details the alleged roles in the Taccetta group conspiracy of each of those indicted. Anthony Accetturo, a resident of Hollywood, Florida, is the alleged leader of the enterprise and, as such, decides matters of overall policy and resolves disputes between associates of the enterprise. In return, he allegedly receives a percentage of the enterprise’s profits in the form of, “tribute,” payments. Michael Taccetta is the alleged, “under-boss,” and chief executive officer of the New Jersey operations of the enterprise. In this capacity he allegedly reports directly to Anthony Accetturo, supervises day-today enterprise activities, resolves disputes, determines short-range policy and collects and disburses revenues obtained through the criminal activities of the enterprise. As compensation, he allegedly receives a share of the group’s profits, as well as income derived directly from his own activities. Michael Perna allegedly advises Michael Taccetta and functions as an intermediary between Taccetta and members of the enterprise regarding the commission of crimes. Thomas Ricciardi allegedly supervises and manages the installation and repair of certain illegal video gambling machines and collects the proceeds from the machines. Count 2 of the indictment alleges that the 26 defendants operated in concert as an enterprise within the meaning of Section 1961(4) of RICO. An “enterprise,” as defined by the statute, “includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity,” 18 United States Code Section 1961(4). The Supreme Court has held that a completely illegal organization may satisfy this definition. See United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981). By incorporating the allegations of Count 1, which detail the alleged hierarchical nature of the Taccetta group, the alleged respective roles of each defendant and the overall coordination of criminal activity provided for by the group, the indictment attempts to outline the elements of a RICO enterprise laid out by the Turkette Court: “Evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal and ... evidence that the various associations function as a continuing unit.” Id. at 583, 101 S.Ct. at 2528. Further, the enterprise must be shown to have in existence separate and apart from the pattern of activity in which it engages. Id. The Third Circuit has further defined each of these elements in United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 849, 104 S.Ct. 157, 78 L.Ed.2d 145 (1983). There the Third Circuit said that the “ongoing organization” requirement refers to the group’s superstructure. “To satisfy this element, the government must show that some sort of structure exists within the group for the making of decisions, whether it be hierarchical or consensual. There must be some mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the group on an ongoing, rather than an ad hoc, basis. This does not mean that every decision must be made by the same pérson or that authority may not be delegated.” 709 F.2d at 222. The second element, the “continued unit” requirement, does not mean that the membership of the group remain static. Rather, it requires, “that each person perform role in the group consistent with the organizational structure established by the first element and which further the activities of the organization.” Id. at 223. Finally, the third element requires proof that the enterprise has “an existence beyond that which is necessary merely to commit each of the acts charged as predicate racketeering offenses. The function of overseeing and coordinating the commission of several different predicate offenses and other activities on an ongoing basis is adequate to satisfy the separate existence requirement.” Id. at 223-24. III. DETERMINATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE BELOW The government has previously sought the detention of each of the four defendants at their initial appearances below. On August 21st, 1985 the government moved to detain defendant Accetturo before Magistrate Patricia J. Kyle in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The government sought detention on two grounds. First, that Mr. Accetturo was charged with a violation of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 United States Code Section 801, et seq., and was, therefore, subject to the rebuttable presumption under 18 United States Code Section 3142(e), that no conditions of release can reasonably assure his appearance at trial and the safety of other persons in the community; and, secondly, that he was charged with committing crimes of violence (racketeering offenses involving loansharking and extortion), “while on pretrial release for two separate federal offenses and, therefore, posed a danger to the community through continued criminal activity. Magistrate Kyle denied the government’s request for detention and ordered that Mr. Accetturo be released on $450,000 personal surety bond co-signed by his wife subject to several conditions. While I have read the transcript of the hearing before Magistrate Kyle, I do not believe it is necessary to detail what portions of the magistrate’s reasoning I’ve accepted or rejected. The government appealed the release order to Judge Norman Roettger of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Judge Roettger issued an oral order dismissing the government’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 18 United States Code Section 3145, which provides that if the government seeks review of a magistrate’s release order it must move for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release with the Court having original jurisdiction over the offense. Defendants Taccetta, Perna and Ricciardi were arrested and appeared before Magistrate G. Donald Haneke in Newark on August 21st, 1985. The government moved under 18 United States Code Section 3142(e) and (f) to detain Mr. Taccetta on the ground that he posed a danger to the community and under 18 United States Code Section 3142(f) to detain Mr. Perna and Mr. Ricciardi on the grounds that each posed a danger to the community and other persons. At the conclusion of the hearing, Magistrate Haneke denied the government’s request for detention ruling that the government had not met its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants posed a danger to the community either as potential threats to government witnesses or through potential continuation of criminal activities, while on pretrial release. Magistrate Haneke’s decision was not accompanied by factual findings. While I have also read the transcript of the hearing before the magistrate, I do not believe it is necessary to specifically detail what portions of the magistrate’s reasoning I have accepted or rejected. The government filed a motion with this Court on September 13th, 1985 seeking review of both magistrates’ release orders as to defendants Accetturo, Taccetta, Perna and Ricciardi under 18 U.S.C. Section 3145(a). I held separate hearings on the government’s motions on October 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 and 15. IV. THE BAIL REFORM ACT OF 1984 The Bail Reform Act of 1984 lays out a comprehensive procedure for effecting the release or detention of those charged with violations of federal law. The Act was enacted to revise the former statute, the Bail Reform Act of 1966, which was designed solely to consider assurance of the defendant’s appearance at judicial proceedings in setting bail. See Senate Report No. 225, 98th Congress, Second Session, 3, (reprintedin 1984 in the United States Code, Congressional & Administrative News 3182, 3185 to 86). In considering bail reform legislation, Congress, inter alia, noted the alarming problems of crime committed by persons on pretrial release and the former Act’s failure to address this reality. 1984 United States Code, Congressional & Administrative News at 3185-3188. The Act’s legislative history clearly indicates that the Bail Reform Act of 1984 is designed to address this problem and give the courts authority to, “make release decisions that give the appropriate recognition to the danger a person may pose to others if released.” Id. at 3185. Congress further stated: “There is a small but identifiable group of particularly dangerous defendants as to whom neither the imposition of stringent release conditions nor the prospect of revocation of release can reasonably assure the safety of the community or other persons. It is with respect to this limited group of offenders that the courts must be given the powers to deny release pending trial. “The decision to provide for pretrial detention is in no way a derogation of the importance of the defendant’s interest in remaining at liberty prior to trial. However, not only the interests of the defendant, but also important societal interests are at issue in the pretrial release decision. Where there is a strong possibility that a person will commit additional crimes if released, the need to protect the community becomes sufficiently compelling that detention is, on balance, appropriate. This rationale—that a defendant’s interests in remaining free prior to conviction is, in some circumstances, outweighed by the need to protect societal interest—has been used to support court decisions which, despite the absence of any statutory provision for pretrial detention, have recognized the implicit authority of the courts to deny release to defendants who have threatened jurors or witnesses or who pose significant risks of flight. In these cases, the societal interests implicated was the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process. The need to protect the community from demonstrably dangerous defendants is a similarly compelling basis for ordering detention prior to trial.” Id. at 3189-90 (footnotes omitted). Section 3142(f) provides that a judicial officer shall hold a hearing “to determine whether any condition or combination of conditions set forth in Subsection (c) will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person in the community in a case (1) upon motion of the attorney for the government that involves (A) a crime of violence ... (C) an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act ... or (2) Upon motion of the attorney for the government or upon the judicial officer’s own motion that involves (A) a serious risk that the person will flee; (B) a serious risk that the person will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten injury, intimidate or attempt to threaten injury, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror.” A “crime of violence”, as used in Section 3142(f)(1)(A) is “an offense that has as one of its elements the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. Section 3156(a)(4)(A). Section 3142(e) provides a rebuttable presumption that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community if the judicial officer finds there is probable cause to believe that the person committing an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act, (21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq) ...” This presumption shifts to the defendant the burden of production not the burden of persuasion. United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378 (1st Cir.1985); United States v. Columbo, 616 F.Supp. 780, 785, (E.D.N.Y.1985). Although the Act does not explicitly state what is necessary to support a probable cause finding to trigger the presumption, the Supreme Court has declared that a grand jury indictment alone is adequate to establish the probable cause necessary for the issuance of an arrest warrant. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 117, footnote 19, 95 S.Ct. 854, 865, footnote 19, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975) and Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 487, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 1250, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503 (1958). A presumption of regularity, of course, attaches to Grand Jury proceedings. See In re Grand Jury Proceeding, 632 F.2d 1033, 1040 (3d Cir.1980). I have found no basis for determining that Congress intended to require the production of independent evidence to establish probable cause. Therefore, the Grand Jury indictment alone establishes the probable cause necessary to trigger the rebuttable presumption of Section 3142(e) Contra United States v. Allen, 605 F.Supp. 864, 869 (W.D.Pa.1985); United States v. Fisher, 618 F.Supp. 536 (E.D.Pa.1985) decided by former Chief Judge Lord. United States v. Allen holds that a judicial officer must have a factual basis, independent of the fact that an indictment has been returned, upon which to make a finding of probable cause. Although I do not agree with that conclusion, the Allen standard is met in this case, as, I find, regardless of which standard one uses, I find there is independent evidence to trigger the presumption. In addition, the evidence as to probable cause far outweighs that found to be sufficient by. Judge Lord in United States v. Fisher. In determining whether release conditions exist which will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant or the safety of any other person in the community, Section 3142(g) of the Act instructs the judicial officer to consider any information concerning the following: “(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person including (A) his character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history related to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history and record concerning appearance at court proceedings and (B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, he was on probation, on parole or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State or local law; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release.” If, after considering these conditions and holding a detention hearing, the judicial officer finds that no release, condition or combination of conditions will assure the defendant’s appearance or the safety of persons in the community, the judicial officer shall order the detention of the defendant. See 18 United States Code Section 3142(e). If the judicial officer predicates his or her decision to detain the defendant on a finding of dangerousness to the community, the facts used to support such a finding, “shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence.” See 18 United States Code Section 3142(f). If the judicial officer decides to detain an individual pursuant to this Act, such detention order shall include, inter alia, written findings of fact and a written statement of the reasons for the detention. See Section 3142(i). A release order must contain a written statement setting forth conditions of release. See Section 3142(h). Finally, Section 3142(j) of the Act provides that “nothing in this section shall be construed as modifying or limiting the presumption of innocence.” The phrase “safety of any other person or the community,” embodies the concept of dangerousness which Congress specifically intended the new Bail Act incorporate. The legislative history makes clear that this phrase encompasses more than just the safety of an identifiable person; for example, a victim or a witness. The word “community” refers to the potential for continued criminal activity on the part of the defendant that would endanger other unidentified persons. See Senate Report No. 225, 98th Congress, Second Session 12, reprinted in 1984, United States Code, Congressional & Administrative News at page 3195. Moreover, Congress intended that the concept of safety encompass more than freedom from the potential for physical violence. Senate Report No. 225 cites with approval the case in this circuit of United States v. Provenzano, 605 F.2d 85 (3rd Cir.1979) to illustrate that the concept of danger extends to such non-life-threatening harms as corrupting a union. See Senate Report No. 225 at pages 12 and 13 reprinted in 1984 in the United States Code, Congressional & Administrative News at pages 3195 and 96. Chief Judge Weinstein’s recent opinion in the Eastern District of New York in United States v. Columbo cited supra provides us further guidance on this concept in the context of an alleged organized crime enterprise. Chief Judge Weinstein stated: “The (Bail Reform Act of 1984) does not require that the defendant himself commit acts of physical violence as a condition precedent to a detention order. Nor does the statute suggest that if a defendant has the ability to endanger the community vicariously from a prison cell, through orders to his underlings, detention is inappropriate. Leaders of criminal gangs who direct the commission of violent crimes by others can be detained prior to trial under the circumstances prescribed in the Act. A warden is in a position to inhibit criminal activities in jail by criminal overlords.” See page 785 of that opinion. V. STANDARD OF REVIEW. At the outset I shall discuss the standard of review that we employ reviewing the release order of a magistrate. Ordinarily, a magistrate’s nondispositive order can be set aside only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 United States Code Section 636(b)(1)(A). As the Third Circuit observed in United States v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390 (3d Cir.1985), the Bail Reform Act of 1984 does not expressly provide a standard review for a magistrate’s bail decision. However, after considering the legislative history, case law interpreting the former bail statute and the statute itself, Judge Adams, writing for the Court, held that the Bail Reform Act contemplates de novo determinations by the district judge. 757 F.2d at 1394 and 1395. In Delker the Court recommended that the district court consider the decision of the magistrate in making its determinations but found no error in the district court’s failure to explain why it rejected the magistrate’s reasoning below. The Court stated: “In most cases the district court will find it useful to consider carefully the decision and reasoning of a magistrate. We cannot say, however, that in the present situation, after reviewing the magistrate’s opinion and holding a hearing, the district court erred by not combing the transcript of the hearing before the magistrate or in not specifically detailing which portions of the magistrate’s reasons were incorrect. It is sufficient that the district court fully explained the result it reached and the reasons for it.” 757 F.2d 1395. In a footnote to this statement the Court added: “It is preferable that a transcript of the hearing before the magistrate be available for consideration by the district court in its review of the magistrate’s decision, in order that the Court may, in an informed exercise of discretion, determine whether additional evidence is desirable. There may be instances, such as in the case at hand, in which the district court has held a complete evidentiary hearing of its own, and therefore a transcript of the hearing before the magistrate is not essential.” See Delker on that previous page cited, 1395, Footnote 3. Therefore, it is clear that Delker recommends that the district court, on review of a magistrate’s order, utilize the transcript of the proceedings below. Delker in no way binds the Court to do so; rather, the judge may conduct an evidentiary hearing and explain his findings, provided it is in compliance with all other requirements of the Act. VI. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, a. In General Beyond the issue of the consideration that must be given to the magistrate’s findings, I must also at the outset determine which items of evidence presented by the parties are admissible in a de novo evidentiary hearing. Section 3142(f) of the Act governing the conduct of the detention hearing provides that “the person (whose detention is sought) shall be afforded an opportunity to testify, to present witnesses on his own behalf, to cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing and to present information, by proffer or otherwise. The rules concerning the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at'the hearing.” In Delker the Third Circuit considered the defendant’s arguments that this section of the Act affords the defendant, not the Court, a choice of whether to proceed, “by proffer or otherwise.” Defendant Delker argued that the Court violated the statute by requiring his counsel to proceed by the proffer of several defense witnesses’ testimony. This circuit rejected both arguments relying on United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C.App.1981) (en banc); cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 (1982) (upholding the procedural requirements of the District of Columbia detention statute upon which the Bail Reform Act of 1984 is based). The Delker Court found that “discretion lies with the district court to accept evidence by live testimony or proffer.” See Delker at 1396 (citing United States v. Payden, 598 F.Supp. 1388, 1398, Footnote 14, (S.D.N.Y.1984). In approving the use of proffers, the Court also relied heavily on Congress’ admonition that bail hearings should not become mini trials. See Delker citing Senate Report No. 225, 98th Congress, First Session at page 24, 1983, reprinted in the 1984 United States Code, Congressional & Administrative News at 3207; accord United States v. Acevido-Ramos, 755 F.2d 203, 206 (1st Cir.1985). Defendants here contend only that a defendant may proceed by proffer and the government must present all evidence in full. As I stated the other day, at Mr. Taccetta’s hearing, I find this is clearly not the case. Neither the statute nor Delker put such a limitation on the use of a proffer. And I allowed both the defendants and the government to proceed in this manner. Moreover, the Delker Court construed the provisions of Section 3142(f) as allowing the admission and consideration of hearsay. In so doing, the Court noted that hearsay was admissible under the Bail Reform Act of 1966. See page 1396, citations omitted. Further, the Court looked to Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), Where the Supreme Court stated that in considering the procedures required for a probable cause determination hearing following a warrantless arrest, “the full panoply of adversary safeguards—counsel, confrontation, cross-examination, and compulsory process ... are not essential.” See Delker at 1397 (quoting Gerstein 420 U.S. at pages 119 and 120, 95 S.Ct. at page 866). In Gerstein the Supreme Court declared that despite the fact that the probable cause determination may result in a temporary loss of liberty, it “traditionally has been decided by a magistrate in a nonadversary proceeding on hearsay and written testimony and the Court has approved of these informal modes of proof.” 420 U.S. at page 120, 95 S.Ct. at page 866. Relying on Gerstein, this circuit in Delker rejected the defendant’s contentions that hearsay may not be admitted to demonstrate that the appellant committed the crime charged and that the district court must subpoena the out-of-court declarants whose statements linked the defendant to the crimes. See Delker at page 1390; United States v. Acevedo-Ramos, cited supra at page 207. However, the freedom to admit hearsay in bail proceedings in no way negates the traditional requirement that such evidence must first be found reliable. The judicial officer is still able to make such determinations of reliability despite the speedy and informal nature of detention hearings. “The magistrate or judge possesses adequate power to reconcile the competing demands of speed and reliability by selectively insisting upon the production of the underlying evidence or evidentiary sources where their accuracy is in question.” See United States v. Acevedo-Ramos, cited supra, at page 207. Although hearsay evidence may be considered, Section 3142(f)(2)(B) still requires that “the facts that the judicial officer uses to support a finding pursuant to subsection (e), that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community, shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence.” Of this clear and convincing evidence standard, Senate Report 98-225 states: “Because of the importance of the interests of the defendant which are implicated in a pretrial detention hearing, the Committee has specifically provided that the facts on which the judicial officer bases a finding that no form of conditional release is adequate reasonably to assure the safety of any other person and the community, must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. This provision emphasizes the requirement that there be an evidentiary basis for the facts that lead the judicial officer to conclude that a pretrial detention is necessary. Thus, for example, if the criminal history of the defendant is one of the factors to be relied upon, clear evidence such as records of arrest and conviction should be presented. (The committee does not intend, however, that the pretrial detention hearing be used as a vehicle to re-examine the validity of past convictions.) Similarly, if the dangerous nature of the current offense is to be a basis of detention, then there should be evidence of the specific elements or circumstances of the offense, such as possession or use of a weapon or threats to a witness, that tend to indicate that the defendant will pose a danger to the safety of the community if released.” Senate Report 98-225 at page 22, 1984 United States Code, Congressional and Administrative News at 3205. This is one of the higher standards of proof required in judicial factfinding. It is a stricter test than the preponderance of evidence standard most commonly used in civil proceedings. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Incorporated, 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). In addition, only the preponderance of the evidence test has also been used to determine the admissibility of evidence under the Constitutional exclusionary rules. See Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972). However, as stated in United States v. Fatico, 458 F.Supp. 388 (E.D.N.Y.1978), the Court said: “In situations where the various interests of society are pitted against restrictions on the liberty of the individual, a more demanding standard is frequently imposed, such as proof by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence.” 458 F.Supp. at 405 (quoting In re Ballay, 482 F.2d 648, 662 (D.C.Cir.1973)). Thus, the standard I am to apply to the evidence is quite high. The government received court authorization to conduct electronic surveillance of the front room and rear rooms of the premises of the Hole in the Wall Luncheonette, 115 Delancey Street in Newark, New Jersey. Surveillance at this location intercepted criminal conversations in which offenses charged in the indictment were discussed. Several of the conversations obtained pursuant to this court-authorized wiretap were conditionally accepted into evidence by this Court at the defendants’ • detention hearings. I will now consider the legal issues raised by the use of this electronic surveillance evidence. Defendants Michael Taccetta, Thomas Ricciardi and Michael Perna at their revocation hearings moved to exclude any evidence acquired from electronic surveillance. This position, first enunciated by the defendant Perna on October 8th, 1985 at his hearing, was reinforced by a memorandum submitted to the Court on October 11th by Mr. Taccetta’s counsel. All three defendants relied on the legal arguments stated therein. Essentially, defendants rely on two provisions of Title III, 18 United States Code Section 2510 et seq; Sections 2515 and 2518(9). Section 2515 states: “Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications. “Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.” Section 2518 states: (9) “The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted pursuant to this chapter or evidence derived therefrom shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing or other proceeding in a Federal or State court unless each party, not less than ten days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding, has been furnished with a copy of the court order, and accompanying application, under which the interception was authorized or approved. This ten-day period may be waived by the judge if he finds that it was not possible to furnish the party with the above information ten days before the trial, hearing or proceeding and that the party will not be prejudiced by the delay in receiving such information.” Mr. Taccetta’s counsel in his oral argument supplementing his memorandum stated: “Mr. Taccetta would have the same objection to ... any testimony derived directly or indirectly from wiretap being introduced at this hearing, for two reasons. One reason, we did not receive notice as required, your Honor, under Title III. Title III specifically requires that if any information which is derived, directly or indirectly, from wiretap is to be used—and the statute is very specific—at a trial or any hearing, then we are to be given a copy of the application that was originally to be submitted to the judge and also be given copies of the transcripts which were prepared as a result of the wiretap. “There are very, very compelling reasons for requiring this, your Honor. Title III reflects the Congressional recognition that a wiretap constitutes very severe interference with an individual’s right of privacy.” See Transcript of, Oct. 10, 1985, page 13, lines 9 to 24. Mr. Zegas also stated on behalf of Mr. Taccetta: “... you can’t take the government at its own word that information indirectly acquired was, indeed, independently acquired. That is not permissible. You have to give us the opportunity, at minimum, to review the application and order that attended the wiretap.” See transcript at page 16, lines 9 to 13. Defendant’s counsel was also permitted to submit two supplemental Memoranda of Law following the hearing. In support of their contention, defendants rely heavily on United States v. Farese, 611 F.2d 67 (5th Cir.1980). In Farese, a bail revocation proceeding, the Fifth Circuit held that the “ ‘plain’ language of Section 2515 (‘no evidence’ may be received in ‘any proceeding’ before ‘any court’) quote clearly demonstrated an intention on Congress’ part to have the Act apply to ‘bail revocation hearings’ or any other proceeding in which evidence is being introduced affirmatively by the government.” See 611 F.2d page 67 and page 71. Defendants further contend that in passing the Bail Reform provisions of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Congress never amended Title III to exclude bail hearings and therefore Congress “intended the prohibition on wrongfully obtained communications to continue under the new Bail Act.” See Mr. Taccetta’s supplemental memorandum, page 2. The government in response contends that Congress did not intend to apply Sections 2515 and 2518 to the Bail Reform Act of 1984 pointing to the statutory mandate of expeditiousness “in order to protect the community against dangerous defendants and to prevent flight.” It argues that to adopt defendant’s position detention hearings would be transformed into mini trials which is impermissible under Delker. See Delker, 757 F.2d at 1395. The government further argues that In re Harkins, 624 F.2d 1160, 1166, 1167 (3rd Cir.1980) and Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 92 S.Ct. 2357, 33 L.Ed.2d 179 (1972), reflect a recognition in the context of Grand Jury witnesses of “an accommodation between the due functioning of the Grand Jury system and the federal wiretap statute.” 408 U.S. at page 70, 92 S.Ct. at 2372. (White, J., concurring). See also Harkins at page 1167. Moreover, the government contends that the defendants, even if correct, have waived their purported rights under 18 U.S.Code Sections 2515 and 2518 since they made no objection to the use of such evidence before Magistrate Haneke and because Mr. Taccetta’s counsel even “affirmatively used these disclosures in the defense proffer.” See government’s memorandum page 11. In a supplemental brief dated October 16, 1985, the government finally relies on the case of United States v. Angiulo, 755 F.2d 969 (1st Cir.1985) for the proposition that wiretap evidence can be used at a bail hearing before its legality is tested. Although this Court was previously aware of the Angiulo case prior to the government’s submission, defendant Taccetta was given an opportunity to submit an additional letter brief commenting on the case. The problem presented here is troublesome. There can be no doubt that Congress was deeply concerned with the privacy rights of defendants in enacting Title III. See Gelbard cited supra, 408 U.S. at page 48, 92 S.Ct. at page 2361. The First Circuit in In re Globe Newspaper Company, 729 F.2d 47 (1st Cir.1984), a case related to Angiulo, recently stated: “The extensive disclosure restrictions of Title III reflects Congress’ recognition that when communications are unlawfully intercepted the invasion of privacy is not over when the interception occurs, but is compounded by disclosure.” Judge Coffin, speaking for the panel, quoted a First Circuit case, Providence Journal Company v. FBI, 602 F.2d 1010, 1013 (1st Cir.1979). See 729 F.2d at 54. In addition to these vital concerns, I must look to the mandates of the Bail Reform Act. Section 3142(f)(2)(B), inter alia, requires a detention hearing to “be held immediately upon the person’s first appearance before the judicial officer unless that person or the attorney for the government seeks a continuance.” Section 3145 dealing with review and appeal of a release or detention order requires that such motion “be determined promptly.” In stressing the need for de novo review the Delker court, relying on United States v. Edwards, said: The Bail Reform Act permits detention of the defendant pending completion of a hearing, BRA Section 3142(f), and thus the judicial officer is commanded to render a prompt decision. It may not always be possible to procure a transcript quickly. We note that under the statute a defendant may request a continuance of five days if he or she wishes the time. BRA Section 3142(f). Thus, while we are reluctant to impose a time-consuming requirement on a proceeding that must by its nature be speedy, we believe that the presence of a transcript is important and that a defendant, if he or she considers it advisable, may employ a continuance to ensure that the magistrate’s transcript is available. “Congress warned that bail hearings should not become mini trials. See Delker page 1395, Footnote 3 at page 1396. Tension obviously exists between the two statutes. In Globe and a case which I described was directly related to it, United States v. Angiulo, cited supra, the First Circuit attempted to deal with this delicate problem. Globe addressed itself to the familiar controversy of Fair Trial versus Free Press. In Globe the Court noted that the magistrate had closed its bail hearing to the public because of the introduction of wiretap evidence under the Bail Reform Act of 1966. There the magistrate, pursuant to Section 2518(9) had entered an ex parte order waiving the ten-day document inspection period. The circuit court upheld the Magistrate and the District Judge below in barring the press after balancing First Amendment rights against Sixth Amendment considerations. Subsequently, in Angiulo, the defendant in the above matter sought release from pretrial detention. The District Judge, applying the Bail Reform Act of 1984, denied the application. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding inter alia that the new Act’s provisions were applicable. Significantly, Judge Breyer, speaking for the Court, said: “Appellant argues that, even if the new Act applies, the government has not proved by the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that the Act requires that he poses a danger to ‘the safety of any other person in the community.’ 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(f). He first claims that the district court could not rely on the evidence obtained by electronic surveillance, the legality of which he challenges. We previously wrote, how much, in In re Globe Newspaper, 729 F.2d 47, 54 (1st Cir.1984), a case in which both the defendant and the government were parties, that the provisions of federal law ‘allowed disclosure of (information obtained through electronic surveillance) to the court conducting ... bail hearings,’ at least until a court has decided that the material was not obtained legally. Otherwise, the challenge of a defendant to lawfully obtain materials might prove sufficient to keep highly relevant information from the judicial officer or to delay the initial bail hearing, contrary to the ‘immediacy’ requirement of Section 3142(f).” . Reading Angiulo closely, it seems that the Court chose not to rely on the ex parte waiver but on the necessity for a prompt limited hearing at the bail stage of the case. I cannot distinguish Farese except to say that it dealt with the 1966 Act while this court must be concerned with this new statute. Obviously, some common sensible accommodation must be made where a vital right of privacy is to be considered, even in light of the intention of Congress to provide for pretrial detention on broader grounds than previously existed. Farese, however, does not properly address these competing interests. Delker, as previously noted, recognizes the statutory necessity of promptness and immediacy. It instructs the Court to prevent detention hearings or revocation hearings from becoming a “full blown trial contrary to the aforementioned requirements of Section 3142(f).” Although these hearings are to be held promptly, it must be recognized that these hearings can result, as Delker points out, in restricting “for a significant time the liberties of presumably innocent persons.” 757 F.2d at 1398. Even considering such possible restrictions on liberty, I find Angiulo more persuasive than Farese in light of the new Act and its provisions. I also find that Delker, while not directly on point, is philosophically more in tune with the First Circuit’s approach than the Fifth Circuit’s and provides relevant precedential guidance. I find that in this context Congress did not intend nor is it constitutionally required that Sections 2515 and 2518(9) be followed in a Section 3142 pretrial detention or release hearing. Perhaps the fair and just solution in certain circumstances is for a judicial officer, confronted with electronic surveillance evidence at a bail hearing, to follow the reasoning of Globe and seal the evidence in order to preserve the defendant’s right to a fair trial. While sealing all electronic surveillance until its legality is determined is one option to consider at a bail hearing, I do not find that such a procedure would be required under Third Circuit law. In United States v. Martin, 746 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1984), Judge Higginbotham, in reversing the districts court’s order sealing tape recordings admitted into evidence at trial stressed that the district judge was in error when he concluded that there was a “no reasonable alternative to this course of action.” The Third Circuit concluded that the District Court had given too little weight to the impact of skillfully conducted voir dire examination as an antidote to the effects of publicity. See page 970, citing to United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814, 828 (3d Cir.1981). While the Third Circuit has not yet addressed the exact issue raised here, I believe their reasoning would be similar. Here, on the record before me, however, the defendants only asked that the record be sealed as to certain matters. Assuming, arguendo, that defendants are correct in their contention that Title Ill’s provisions are applicable, I find that they clearly waived their rights in this regard. As the government correctly points out, it used some electronic surveillance evidence at the hearings before Magistrate Haneke without any objection from the defendants. In fact, as noted previously, Mr. Taccetta’s counsel used these disclosures affirmatively. The government did state its intention to continue to utilize electronic surveillance material in its initial brief in support of detention which defendants received in mid-September at least three weeks prior to these hearings. And the government’s amended briefs rang similar bells. In the face of this, all three defendants waited until the eve of these hearings before me to raise this issue. Admittedly, the second time around the government utilized a greater amount of such material, but this was clearly predictable and foreseeable. Contrary to defendants’ assertions, the notice provisions of subsection 9 of 28 U.S.C. Section 2518 were not rendered meaningless with such advance notice. Defendants’ trial counsel are all highly experienced in matters of this kind. As Mr. Ricciardi’s counsel stated at the hearing on October 9th, 1985, “... I’m frank to say at the time of the magistrate’s hearing we did not perceive this issue. It might have escaped us, that’s all.” See transcript of the Ricciardi proceeding, page 6. To the extent the issue is even viable, the waiver of this issue could not be much .clearer. The government provided defendants with the orders, applications and affidavits supporting electronic surveillance on Tuesday, October 15, 1985, three days ago. Should defendants challenge this surveillance under Title III and any and all of the evidence relied on be suppressed at a later date, nothing prevents the defendants from bringing a motion for release based on this fact at a later date, should they be detained. 6. Evidence Presented for In Camera Consideration. Additionally, at the detention hearings for defendants Accetturo and Taccetta, the government presented two tapes of an oral communication obtained pursuant to court-authorized electronic surveillance, a transcript of the tapes and the affidavits of Special Agents of the FBI. In their affidavits the agents state that they are personally familiar with the voices of the three and they certify that the voices on the tape are correctly identified. The government offered this evidence to show (1) that Martin Taccetta and Robert Caravaggio have threatened a potential government witness, Michael Esposito, as well as Esposito’s family, and that they will continue to do so; and, (2) that defendants Accetturo and Michael Taccetta control Martin Taccetta’s and Robert Caravaggio’s actions in this regard. In seeking in camera consideration of the evidence, the government argues that disclosure of the transcript and tape would identify three speakers not currently known by the defendants to have knowledge of an alleged extortion involving Michael Esposito and would thus subject these individuals to threats and/or physical violence. Little authority exists to guide this Court in determining whether to consider evidence in camera. In United States v. Stanford, 551 F.Supp. 209, 211, (D.C.Md.1982), the district court held that the magistrate below did not err in considering in camera a sealed affidavit to determine if bail should be reinstated or the defendant should be detained. The Stanford court held that a defendant is provided with a summary of a sealed affidavit, the reliability of which is determined as a preliminary matter, and where the summary is found to be accurate and complete in terms of the type of detail necessary to put the defendant on notice as to the nature of the allegations against him, due process is not violated as long as the defendant has the opportunity to refute the allegations. Id. In United States v. Acevedo-Ramos, 755 F.2d at 208-09, the First Circuit approved of the Stanford procedure for inspecting evidence ex parte in camera in certain limited circumstances: “[I]n an unusual case, where the government provides strong special reasons for keeping its evidentiary sources confidential, e.g., protecting witness safety, the magistrate or judge, upon defendant’s request, can still test the veracity of the government’s testimony and the quality of the underlying evidence by, for example, listening to tapes or reading documents in camera. “Such examination offers a practical way to reconcile the ... need for witness protection with defendant’s reasonable interest in securing an independent judicial check on the quality of the evidence the government advances as a ground for his detention. We do not here mean to suggest an in camera presentation of evidence is often desirable or often permissible except in a very unusual case. Rather, we mean simply that in the very unusual case in which strong special reasons warrant confidentiality and where the defendant is apprised of the gist of the evidence through government testimony at the hearing, the magistrate’s independent, though in-camera, review of the underlying evidence at the defendant’s request offers the defendant greater protection than no independent check at all.” Id. (Citations omitted). United States v. Wind, 527 F.2d 672 (6th Cir.1975), however, seems to present conflicting authority. There the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s order to detain the defendant because the order relied to some degree on in camera testimony presented by the government showing that Wind would flee if released and would pose a danger to witnesses in the community. Id. at 676. Although the transcript of the magistrate’s hearing contained substantial evidence that Wind posed a danger, the court held that reliance to any extent on the in camera testimony was error. Id. at 675, 676. The Stanford court distinguishes Wind, however, by noting that there the defendant was completely excluded from an evidentiary hearing before the district court. Stanford, 551 F.Supp. at 211. In Stanford, the defendant was present at the evidentiary hearing and excluded from seeing only one sealed affidavit. I find this distinction tenable in determining that the Acevedo-Ramos/Stanford rule should govern my ex parte in camera consideration of a taped consideration and a transcript in this case. I find the government has satisfied the requirements of Acevedo-Ramos and Stanford. The government has provided the “strong special reasons” requiring the confidentiality of this information. In essence, disclosure of the identities of the speakers of the tape would subject them to potential harm and interference as witnesses. Moreover, in its amended brief, the government provides an extensive summary of the contents of the recording and transcript. This summary provides the defendants with the details necessary to refute the allegations contained therein. Finally, I have determined for the reasons stated by the government in its brief— namely, that the conversants are accountable to others for the truth of their taped statements—that the information contained in the tapes is reliable. I therefore find that the two tapes and the transcript may be considered in camera by this Court in deciding whether to detain defendants Accetturo and Taccetta. Defendant Taccetta raises the argument that the government’s right to seek revocation of the magistrate’s order has been waived by the untimeliness of their motion. This argument I find is of no merit and need not detain us long. Although 18 U.S.C. Section 3145 states that a revocation motion “shall be determined promptly,” the statute provides no further guidelines as to what promptness is required in circumstances such as those present here. I find that promptness emphasizes the need to consider both the interests of an already incarcerated defendant and the interests of society in allowing an allegedly dangerous individual to roam free due to a congested court calendar. This phrase, however, set no time limit for the government’s filing of its revocation motion. Certainly, the swiftness of the government in seeking to detain an allegedly dangerous defendant may be an intangible factor in the Court’s impression of whether the defendant is really dangerous, but the final balance required under the Act must turn on' weightier concerns than how swiftly government personnel were able to draft a brief and motion papers. The government’s motions were not untimely. . VII. SPEEDY TRIAL CONCERNS. Defendants have contended that the length of pretrial detention is a factor which must be considered if the Bail Reform Act is to pass constitutional muster. In a complex case such as this, there is no doubt that defendants’ trial will not commence for many months. At present, a trial date has been set, for April 16th, 1986. In addition, the trial, itself, is expected to last at least 3 months. Based on my present scheduling order and the estimated length of trial, the reality of detention here will mean incarceration of presumptively innocent individuals for approximately ten months. Because of this reality, I note at the outset with respect to my original scheduling order that the defendants on the record reserved their right to change their original position regarding excludability factors under the Act should any one of the defendants be detained and wish to go to trial sooner. Defendants’ first argument rests on the case of Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4, 72 S.Ct. 1, 3, 96 L.Ed. 1 (1951), which defendants cite for the proposition that “[t]he length of incarceration prior to trial is of significance to any detention decision because detainment inevitably interferes with the presumption of innocence of a defendant, with the right of a defendant not to be punished unless convicted, and with the right of defendant to the unhampered preparation of a defense.” While I agree that such considerations are of paramount importance in my determination on this issue, I do not find that Stack v. Boyle prohibits pretrial detention in proper circumstances even if it is an extremely lengthy incarceration. Stack addressed the much narrower issue of what constituted excessive bail under a federal law which explicitly provided that some bail must be set for a person arrested for a noncapital offense. As previously stated, the Bail Reform Act is a major departure from prior bail laws, and the presumption that some conditions of release can be fashioned for every defendant is no longer present. The issue raised by a defendant’s concern over the potential length of any detention here more accurately goes to the heart of the balance struck in the new Act between a defendant’s liberty interests and the societal interests incorporated into the new Act previously addressed. The length of the detention enters into this balance as a result of the fact of detention. In essence, a lengthy detention simply lends more gravity to the detention itself at a time when a defendant is constitutionally presumed to be innocent. Therefore, before considering whether the length of detention should be a factor, I must first consider the constitutionality of any detention at all. Although the new Bail Act has specifically been up upheld as constitutional, see, for example, United States v. Hazzard, 598 F.Supp. 1442 (N.D.Ill.1984), United States v. Payden, 609 F.Supp. 1273 (S.D.N.Y.1985), these cases did not review the law in light of the specific length of detention arguments made here. In addressing the abridgement of this liberty interest, the case law concludes that pretrial detention is constitutional in some circumstances. In Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 72 S.Ct. 525, 96 L.Ed. 547 (1952), the Supreme Court stated: “The bail clause was lifted with slight changes from the English Bill of Rights Act. In England that clause had never been thought to accord a right to bail in all cases, but merely to provide that bail shall not be excessive in those cases where it is proper to grant bail. When this clause was carried over into our Bill of Rights, nothing was said that indicated any different concept. The Eighth Amendment has not prevented Congress from defining the classes of cases in which bail shall be allowed in this country. Thus, in criminal cases bail is not compulsory where punishment may be death. Indeed, the very language of the amendment fails to say all arrests must be bailable. We think, clearly, here that the Eighth Amendment does not require that bail be allowed under the circumstances of these eases.” Id. at 545-46, 72 S.Ct. at 536-37 (footnotes omitted; emphasis supplied). Detention during trial has been held to be constitutional upon proof that the defendant was involved in the obstruction of justice. See United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, page 81, (2nd Cir.1985), citing the United States v. Bentvena, 288 F.2d 442, 444, 445 (2d Cir.1961), Carbo v. United States, 288 F.2d 686, 689 (9th Cir.1961), review denied, 369 U.S. 868, 82 S.Ct. 1137, 8 L.Ed.2d 274 (1962). Where risk of flight is unusually great, it is also constitutional to detain a defendant prior to trial. See United States v. Acevedo-Ramos, 755 F.2d 203, 206 (1st Cir.1985) (citing United States v. Abrahams, 575 F.2d 3 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 821, 99 S.Ct. 85, 58 L.Ed.2d 112 (1978); United States v. Melville, 306 F.Supp. 124, 127 (S.D.N.Y.1969); United States v. Graewe, 689 F.2d 54 (6th Cir.1982); United States v. Gilbert, 425 F.2d 490, 491, 492 (D.C.Cir.1969)). These cases did not specifically limit their holdings to situations where the detention would be short. The implicit assumption was that if conditions warranted detention, the defendant would be detained until the end of trial, and the length of that detention was not discussed. Thus, I find that it is well settled that the bail clause of the Eighth Amendment does not prevent lengthy pretrial detention under certain limited circumstances and I turn to weightier concerns raised by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Chief Judge Weinstein in the Columbo case, cited supra, has found that the due process clause requires a consideration of the length of pretrial incarceration as a factor in addition to the four factors Congress spelled out in 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(f). In Columbo, the court ordered the defendants released until trial, after they had already spent more than 90 days in prison. In reaching its decision, the court noted: “No one would argue that these accused of criminal conduct should be treated more leniently because they engage in complex crimes and extensive patterns of criminality involving many associates. Nevertheless, the Court must, it is submitted, consider the time the defendant will probably be incarcerated in determining whether he should be detained before trial ... The largest discretion must be afforded the Magistrate and the District Judge to consider all relevant factors, including the period of possible incarceration.” Columbo, at 787. I respectfully disagree with Chief Judge Weinstein. While I agree that the probable length of incarceration is an important factor in a bail decision, the extensive procedural safeguards contained in the Act and the legislative history of the Act unequivocally demonstrate that this factor is already incorporated in the Act, and Congress did not intend nor is it constitutionally necessary for the Court to rewrite the statute to add this factor. As the Third Circuit noted in Delker, “Pretrial detention implicates a liberty interest and thus may not be imposed contrary to the mandates of procedural due process. E.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 [92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484] (1982) ... But due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protection as the particular situation demands.” Delker, 757 F.2d at 1396. I find that Congress made a determination in the Bail Reform Act as to what procedural protection a deprivation of liberty in the bail context demands and that the balance they have struck withstands constitutional analysis. In dicta the Court in Delker implicitly also recognized that there may be lengthy pretrial detention. The Court stated, “A pretrial detention hearing may restrict for a significant time the liberty of a presumably innocent person.” 757 F.2d at 1398. Before detailing some of the factors Congress considered in striking the balance, I note at the outset that the solemn enactments of the legislative branch enjoy a strong presumption of validity. See Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 2781, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983). This is especially so where, as here, Congress specifically considered the question of the Act’s constitutionality. See Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 64