The following excerpt is from Drimal v. Tai, No. 13-2963-cv, No. 13-2965-cv (2nd Cir. 2015):
The government argues on behalf of all but one defendant4 that a per se "two-minute rule" derived from United States v. Bynumtreating calls monitored for less than two minutes as properly minimizedentitles agents to immunity for interceptions that did not exceed that duration. 485 F.2d 490 (2d Cir. 1973), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 417 U.S. 903 (1974). In Bynum, we held that a wiretap that monitored 2,058 calls in a vast narcotics conspiracy case did not violate Title III's minimization requirement.
Page 17
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.