2022 UT App 135

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee,

v.

BROCK ADAM PICKETT,

Appellant.

Opinion

No. 20200198-CA

Filed December 8, 2022

Second District Court, Ogden Department

The Honorable Ernest W. Jones

No. 161901271

Emily Adams and Benjamin Miller, Attorneys

for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and Jeffrey D. Mann, Attorneys

for Appellee

JUSTICE JILL M. POHLMAN authored this Opinion, in which JUDGE

GREGORY K. ORME and JUSTICE DIANA HAGEN concurred.1

POHLMAN, Justice:

¶1 This is a companion case to and arises out of the same facts 

involved in State v. Sadat Hebeishy, 2022 UT App 134, and State v. 

Tamer Hebeishy, 2022 UT App 136, both of which also issue today. 

1. Justices Jill M. Pohlman and Diana Hagen began their work on 

this case as members of the Utah Court of Appeals. They both 

became members of the Utah Supreme Court thereafter and 

completed their work on this case sitting by special assignment as 

authorized by law. See generally Utah R. Jud. Admin. 3-108(4).
State v. Pickett

20200198-CA 2 2022 UT App 135

In short,2 Brock Adam Pickett was identified by law enforcement 

as a member of the Titanic Crip Society (TCS), a criminal street 

gang in Weber County, Utah. As part of its investigation of TCS, 

law enforcement received authorization from the district court to 

conduct wiretaps of mobile phones belonging to two of Pickett’s 

gang associates—Tamer and Sadat Hebeishy. Based on evidence 

obtained from those wiretaps, the State charged Pickett with 

pattern of unlawful activity and aggravated assault, both with 

gang enhancements. 

¶2 Before trial, Pickett filed a motion to suppress the evidence 

obtained through the wiretaps, arguing that the applications 

seeking the wiretap orders failed to meet the necessity 

requirement of section 77-23a-10(1)(c) of Utah’s Interception of 

Communications Act (the Act).3 See generally Utah Code Ann. 

§§ 77-23a-1 to -16 (LexisNexis 2017 & Supp. 2022). After briefing 

and oral argument, the district court denied the motion, 

concluding that law enforcement had satisfied the Act’s necessity 

requirement. Pickett later entered a conditional guilty plea to one 

2. A more fulsome description of the relevant facts and procedural 

history can be found in State v. Sadat Hebeishy, 2022 UT App 134.

3. The Act allows any “aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or 

proceeding in or before any court” to move to suppress an 

unlawfully intercepted communication. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-

23a-10(11)(a) (LexisNexis 2017). An “aggrieved person” is defined 

in the Act as “a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, 

electronic, or oral communication, or a person against whom the 

interception was directed.” Id. § 77-23a-3(1). The State does not 

contest Pickett’s standing to challenge the wiretaps on Tamer

Hebeishy’s and Sadat Hebeishy’s mobile phones. Thus, we 

assume that Pickett is an “aggrieved person” under the Act for the 

purpose of both wiretaps.
State v. Pickett

20200198-CA 3 2022 UT App 135

count of aggravated assault, reserving his right to appeal the 

court’s denial of his motion to suppress.

¶3 Pickett now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in 

concluding that the wiretap applications satisfied the Act’s 

necessity requirement. This appeal presents materially identical 

facts and the same issue of law that were presented in State v. 

Sadat Hebeishy, 2022 UT App 134, with which this appeal was 

argued. For the reasons set forth in that opinion, we affirm.