Appellant contends that it was error to admit in evidence a transcribed and taped recording of a telephone conversation had between appellant and a special employee of the Government since there was no proof that the employee had consented to the taping and transcription. The call was placed by the employee and the taping and transcription were with his cooperation.

Appellant contends that nevertheless no legal consent was established since it appears that the special employee was himself under arrest for a narcotics violation and had co-operated following as *584 surances that the fact of co-operation would he made known to the United States Attorney’s Office. This is not sufficient to negative consent. United States ex rel. Dixon v. Pate, 330 F.2d 126 (7 Cir. 1964).

Judgment affirmed.