STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES I. II. DOES APPELLANT HAVE STANDING TO OPPOSE THE DISCLOSURE TO THE 2518 (8) (b) OF TITLE III MATERIALS? ARE THE COMMITTEE AND ITS COUNSEL INVESTIGATIVE OFFICERS III. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD SHOWN GOOD CAUSE AS REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 2518 (8) (b) FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE IV. AUTHORIZATION AND SUPERVISION BY APPELLANT OF AN ELECTRONIC DID THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Course of Proceedings and Disposition in the Court Below United States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings, Appellant, has appealed the Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated December 2, 1987, granting to the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives (the Committee), Appellee, access to certain documents, grand jury testimony and other information relating to Judge Hastings' role in the electronic surveillance of the Miami local of the International Longshoreman's Association. This information was sought in connection with the Committee's impeachment inquiry concerning Judge Hastings. On September 25, 1987, the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr., wrote to Judge Butzner, sitting by designation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, requesting access to certain documents, grand jury testimony and other information relating to Judge Hastings' role in the electronic surveillance in question. (App. 5) Judge Butzner forwarded copies of the letter requests to counsel for Judge Hastings and the matter was set for hearing on November 10, 1987. At the request of the Court below, both parties submitted Lists of Authorities in lieu of briefs. (S. App. 1A) The case was fully argued by counsel for the Committee and counsel for Judge Hastings. In addition, a representative of the United States Department of Justice appeared at the hearing and supported the Committee's request. The argument was transcribed. (App. 49-178). On December 2, 1987, Judge Butzner entered an opinion and Order granting the Committee access to all documents relating to Judge Hastings' role in authorizing and supervising the electronic surveillance of the Miami local of the International Longshoremen's Association and to all documents relating to the possible improper disclosure by Judge Hastings of information generated by such electronic surveillance. (App. 32, 35) The Court also granted access to the grand jury testimony of Steven Clark and Chris Mazzella and any accompanying exhibits presented to Grand Jury 86-3 relating to the same matter. Judge Butzner further ruled that the Committee was authorized to receive any information former Assistant United States Attorney Roberto Martinez and FBI agents Chris Mazzella and Geoffrey Santini may have concerning the conduct of Judge Hastings in connection with the same electronic surveillance. Judge Butzner stayed his Order for fourteen days. Judge Hastings filed an appeal to this Court on December 10, 1987. (App. 48) On December 14, 1987, Judge Hastings filed in this Court an Emergency Motion to Extend Stay Pending Disposition of Appeal ("Emergency Motion"), together with an Appendix ("App.") containing relevant excerpts from the record, and on December 15, 1987, the Committee filed its opposition to the Emergency Motion. order. This Court has extended the stay until further B. Statement of the Facts The Committee has pending before it House Resolution 128, which was introduced on March 23, 1987 and which provides for the impeachment of Judge Alcee L. Hastings for high crimes and misdemeanors. (App. 30) The Committee has received information that Judge Hastings may have improperly disclosed information he learned as a result of his role as supervisory judge with respect to an electronic surveillance undertaken pursuant to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.c. Sections 2510-2520 (1968) (hereinafter "Title III".)1 (App. 5) According to information received by the Committee, an electronic surveillance was instituted in July, 1985 as part of an undercover investigation of the Miami local of the International Longshoremen's Association. During the course of the surveillance, which was authorized initially by Judge Hastings and which ran from July 15, 1985 until September 14, 1985, Judge Hastings received progress reports and issued certain orders. The Committee has been informed that one of the progress reports reviewed by Judge Hastings in August, 1985 alluded to statements suggesting that Steven Clark, Mayor of Dade County, may have been assisting in a scheme to secure improper zoning variances. Subsequent to the submission of those progress reports, a conversation was monitored in which one of the speakers stated that Mayor Clark had reported that Judge Hastings had warned the mayor not to associate with certain persons who were "hot" or 1The text of 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2520 is reproduced in the Addendum to Appellee's Brief. "had problems." Shortly thereafter, the government terminated the undercover investigation for security reasons. Efforts were made by law enforcement officials to determine whether Judge Hastings had in fact disclosed information learned from the progress report. During the course of this investigation Mayor Clark and FBI agent Chris Mazzella testified before the grand jury on or about March 20, 1986. The grand jury in question terminated its investigation in 1986 without returning any indictments. STANDARD OF REVIEW OF THE CONTENTIONS 1. With respect to Issue I, the standard of review is whether the District Court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that Judge Hastings lacks standing to oppose the disclosure to the Committee of Title III materials pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 2517 (1) and 2518 (8) (b). 2. With respect to Issue II, the standard of review is whether the District Court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that the Committee and its counsel are "investigative officers" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Section 2517 (1). 3. With respect to Issue III, the standard of review is whether the District Court erred in finding, as a matter of law and fact, that the Committee had shown good cause as required by 18 U.S.C. Section 2518 (8) (b) for the disclosure of documents relating to the authorization and supervision of an electronic |