whether the wiretap in this case that was applied for march rd two thousand and sixteen was premature as it relates to mr davis who was only developed as a suspect ten days prior to the actual application and then within that ten days there was literally no investigation as it relates to mr davis and whether or not the court the district court abused its discretion in  the i think the well as i understand it the statute that either required for the government to ensure explain why they would not bear fruit in a particular case and therefore can convince a judge to forgo what they have is my client shows up on the wire twice once in february th and then again march th and then from there less than ten days later they apply for a application now they list on a number of different things in that necessity statement in the affidavit that they can't do for a variety of different reasons if you look at all of those things they did all of those things for the prior application for the co defendants with similar challenges and similar area so let me all i mean is this raises the question in my mind so they're looking at the affidavit it says the been affected in a dignified mr davis's sort source of supply it was not used that's what i'm trying to figure out what was the best want to what's the set up ones that you think would have allowed them to reach their but whether it would have you know whether they tried and failed whether it would go towards the goal in some manner shape or form or whether it would have been unlikely or whether it that you think would have a den of by mr davis supplier that they they didn't they didn't try so various types of surveillance including mobile surveillance stationary surveillance g if you just know me you know you drive around all the time you meet with lots of different people just because you're meeting with someone most obviously does not mean you're engaged in something nefarious but they'll or that you gave the price along with them but you might be meeting them because they're high school fred so surveillance i'm not sure how surveillance gets it's still the overall goal of outlined in the affidavit is to figure out who else is involved including any other sources of supply who was involved in the drug deal and right who is involved in the drug deal and so if you don't surveillance then you you you you you you gain information on various locations where deals are being done where drugs are how would you know that who drug law paraders are and if you're just doing surveillance which drug deals are being done at those locations as opposed to a meeting my high school buddy to talk about well sure you don't absolutely know for sure but this is the this is the things that among many of things that you do with an investigation to learn who may or may not be involved and you develop other techniques and sources and all of that together leads you to the goals of the investigations find out who else is involved including other sources of supply and what other offenses may be involved in this instance  application and the statute requires not that you definitely will find out from any one of these different investigative techniques but that you go through the process of he said less invasive case but that's not the that's not the test obviously right well that the statute requires in absolutely every individual affidavit before you are authorized to go up on a target that yes you show you a necessity statement that you've gone through no normal investigative techniques you tried and failed or or you or you explain why those or you explain why they want what do you think the government would have to have shown in this case to meet that burden well i think they would have shown much more in in the in the ten within the within the affidavit was just concluded restatements nothing specific as it relates to mr davis and the lack of any confidential informants is that there's church it happened to the effect that there was subsequent to the the wire there was physical surveillance and and a search warrant and in fact do surveillance on somebody and know that they're going to this location but you don't know what they're doing there unless you are on the phone and going to dignify this isn't a high school friend this is a drug dealer right so i'm arranging a drug deal and so then surveillance confirms what you're going to dignify on the wiretap otherwise all d that you know from surveillance just like if somebody followed you around they would know the places you will but they wouldn't otherwise know that once your mother's house once your participating in the drug dealing as opposed to who your client had some interaction with legal or even there's no question about it going up on a wire in conjunction with other investigative techniques is as is is gives you a whole lot of detail whole lot more than you would otherwise have but that's not the question here the statute requires you to go through other less intrusive investigative techniques and before and to show that you've done that before you're allowed to dan go to this extraordinary step of going up on someone's phone the question is not whether this is the best investigative technique but whether you've gone through the steps necessary because the congress has decided that this extraordinary step requires one to go through more steps before we go we go that far and the government here jumped the gun they jumped the gun it must have been very frustrating to go through three years of a very and thorough thorough and particularized investigation go up on a wire on the and it must have been you know on the other hand very exciting to then find which you think is a sort of source of supply a few days later after going up on that initial wire but you have an obligation as it relates to that new target to go through the due diligence necessary that congress laid out before you go to that extraordinary step not reasonably likely to succeed so you go through the affidavit and they say so confidential sources right they have been a final paragraph right we do not know any competent source or undercover agent who can even meet with mr davis much less purchase any narcotics from him right they go through surveillance and they explain why it's not affected that that is the alternative i get your point is you can either try and in lots of instances if they didn't try but the point is they also can explain why it's not likely to be successful if you don't have a confidential source you can't use a company's source and that's sort of the baseline  absolutely on a the thing is in this case they didn't really show why as a relates to demetrius davis why they didn't have the confidential sources why they didn't weren't able to develop confidential informants or do use undercover agents and which is and just remind the court after only ten days if you're really serious about developing confidential informants and the like it i would submit on its face it likes credibility that after ten days they're making this generalized statement that would be a political to any other narcotics investigation out there that they don't have the confidential informants to to to to to take that step they do the same thing as a rule relates to visual in the government's affidavit this investigation it's not simply to find mr davis a source of supply it's to find out who else what other individuals are coconspirators there are what other  individual named clutch he was on the co defendants in this case and they began investigating mr fletcher who was a mid level trafficker in and around the cambridge area from mr fletcher they began conducting surveillance on mr fletcher they s johnson's house and other areas in cambridge to try and ascertain who was giving mr fletcher and mr johnson all this cocaine and it wasn't until the wiretap in february of two thousand and sixteen when the very st time they learned of mr davis supplying massive amounts of cocaine to these individuals as this court has said in clerkly the government is not looted from carrying the investigation further and in drug investigations it's reasonable that wiretapping is neither routinely employed no resorted to in situations where traditional investigative techniques would suffice here was not the st law enforcement who conducted the investigation as the defense concedes and  the traditional investigative techniques were so from there after the st wiretapping and mr davis was intercepted immediate this was on february th of two thousand and sixteen it wasn't ten days of investigative work by law enforcement  specifically was they installed a pen register on the defendant's phone they subpoenaed historical toll records to try and ascertain who the defendant was speaking with they analyze patterns of contacts by the defendant they asked their confidential mobile and physical surveillance they did do that that's outlined in the affidavit on march st two thousand and sixteen they surveilled the defendant meeting with mr fletcher during this meeting in a series of counter surveillance tactics changing up the meat location at the last minute so long for some its investigative tactics that they tried to use there were thwarted by how this organization was operating on the surveillance they also went to mr davis's residence drove by there on a number of occasions there's a series of aerial photos in our brief as well as a drive by video that showed the police were actively looking at residences location they were trying to further their investigation they then attained a g p s for one of the defendants many vehicles and they conducted a financial investigation utilizing wage records from the state of maryland it was only at this point they didn't didn't actually use the g p s their right at the time of the application the g defendant we had some of that that was sufficient for a necessity in this case as to the prior tactics i think that's of used to this court because that informs the agent's beliefs as to their viability throughout this case for example supporters aware that's highly difficult to do unless you have in many instances but particularly if you don't have a confidential source that can introduce the under under cover to the supplier so the police did consider that tactic to explain why it was on reasonable in this case and then with respect to grand jury subpoenas that was the only other technique that was not attempted that's because the as you indicate if you believe that the witness is the customers things of that nature were unlikely to provide the truth and if they were did receive a grand jury subpoena they would likely work the investigation and possibly tip off mr davis in united states vs smith this court held that the burden upon the government to show the adequacy of normal investigative techniques is not rates the adequacy of such showing as to be tested in a practical and common sense fashion that does not unduly hamper investigative powers of law enforcement agents i would submit to the court that is what one happened in this case and judge blake discussing with mr fletcher in intricate details the crystals and the cocaine the yellow girl crystal using coated terms that girl even asks mr fletcher to put some of the cocaine on this tongue to see if it will it these are highly damning conversations referenced in a series of calls including a text message which the defendant does not address why where mr johnson and the defendant get into a verbal argument over the phone about a drug debt that the defendant was attempting to collect and what the defendant what the what mr johnson says is don't bring your drugs around you no more man you bad business these were addressed that briefly in order for him to prevail before this court he would need to convince this court that it should go against several th circuit cases that find that a defendant does not have an expectation of privacy in an asset if and when that defendant denies ownership of second you would have to convince this court that it should go against its prior decision and patterson find that a search warrant for a property does not encompass the vehicles  denied ownership of an asset he no longer has an expectation of privacy to later test a search and the search warrant here clearly was worded in the matter of the search of the property or premises reading that this court would have to give to that to limit the police to be able to only search within the residence which is what this defendant would like to support the natural improbable reading about search warrant granted the place authorization to search the white box truck which is parked in the vicinity the city right next to the house and of course this was a drug related warrant so when the police went to execute the search warrant at the residence they brought  bubble thank you on so the government spends a lot of time on the necessity requirements on everything it did on a prior wiretap application three year investigation i submit that that investigation was quite thorough and particular to the co defendants and in case but not as it relates to mr davis three year investigation for that other application there really laid out not so much for what is really a ten day investigation of mr davis and an affidavit that basically  suddenly excuses all of the normal investigative techniques that were used in that prior application but they decide suddenly now they would not be unsuccessful they actually were successful the trial searches if you look at the joint appendix at page eighty five there were at least two pools they found evidence of packaging they found evidence of where graphically the sources of appendix said page eighty five but suddenly these things won't they won't do with respect to mr de paul samaras my recollection is that the government alleges that mr davis lived in a largely rural the co defendants were in the same or similar general area with the same and similar challenges if you look at the government's brief they have pictures and pages for chief fifteen and twenty five where you and run a guy up the pole and stick a box on it with a with a little window on it that that's a stand out affair but somehow in this same general area that if it wasn't a there are a number of standard normal investigative techniques that were used were successful to some degree and but suddenly aren't good enough for this nd application  phone calls that brief meeting they say they devote a days they say ok he's one of our guys so now it's time to investigate now it's time to use all the standard normal investigative techniques maybe they maybe try to maybe they fail maybe you determine after some you know reasonable time and investigation that these things won't work or they're dangerous but within the span of time that was done in this case there's no way that any of these excuses within the affidavit are acceptable and certainly don't meet the criteria  in the statute therefore i think it's clear that the court below it uses discretion it missed this it missed this and the gun in the state government requires more for such an invasive