855 F.2d 36 - United States v. Hammad — 855 F.2d 36

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2002

5 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

¶2Petition for rehearing in United States v. Hammad, 846 F.2d 854 (2d Cir.1988) (Kaufman, Cardamone and Pierce, Circuit Judges).

¶3Denied

¶4Before KAUFMAN, CARDAMONE and PIERCE, Circuit Judges.

¶5IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge:

¶6The panel’s unanimous opinion, filed May 12, 1988, addressed the concerns raised by *37the government’s petition for rehearing. While we do not customarily set forth reasons for denial of a petition for rehearing, because the briefs submitted by petitioners and amici curiae evince some confusion as to the thrust of our opinion in Hammad, we provide the following clarification.

¶7As we stated in our opinion, DR 7-104(A)(1) “ ‘would not require that government investigatory agencies refrain from all use of informants to gather information.’ ” United States v. Hammad, 846 F.2d 854, 860 (2d Cir.1988) (quoting United States v. Jamil, 707 F.2d 638, 645 (2d Cir.1983)). To the contrary, the opinion expressly assures a prosecutor’s ability to utilize informants to gather facts for law enforcement purposes — subject to ethical and legal restrictions. Thus, when a prosecutor “authorized by law” employs legitimate investigative techniques and conducts his inquiry in accordance with DR 7-104(A)(l), the use of an informant to gather information will be protected.

¶8The concerns raised in the government’s petition for rehearing were appropriately weighed in Hammad. It follows that there is no reason to alter the text of the opinion to cover hypothetical cases in futu-ro. Accordingly, the government’s petition for rehearing should be denied.