T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe doctr i nes * o f law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R
. A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R
. 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned ** u n a n im o u slyth a t o ra l ar g u m e n t w o u ld n o t m a ter iallya ss ist th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is ap p ea l. S ee F ed
. R
. A p p . P
. 3 4 (a)(2); 10 th C ir
. R
. 3 4
. 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### A p r i l 26, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 1226 R A M O N M A R T I N E Z , a/k/ a Ei di B ur ci aga- O r os co, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No
. 0 4
- CR
- 0 0 4 2 9
- M S K) (D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e M CCO NNELL , BA LD OCK , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. **
A j uryfound D efe ndantR amon M art i nez gui l ty of di s tr i but i ng orai di ng and abe t t i ng the di s tr i but i on of 500 gr ams orm or e of m ethamphet ami ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 841 and 18 U
. S. C
. § 2; and conspi r acy t o comm i t the same i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 846. T he di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d D efe ndantt o 360 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . Pr i ort o tr i al , D efe ndant fi l ed tw o m ot i ons t o s uppr es s . D efe ndant ’ s fi r s tm ot i on s oug h t to suppr es s l ar ge s um s of cash un cov ered du ri ng a t raffi c st op . D efen dan t ’s second m oti on soug ht t o sup press2

i ncr i m i nat i ng conver s at i ons the G overnm entr ecor ded pur s uantt o a w i r et ap. T he di s tr i ct
courtdeni ed both m ot i ons . D efe ndant ar gues on appea l the di s tr i ctcourterr ed bec aus e ( 1) the offi cerl acke d r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o det ai n hi m bey ond the t i m e nec es s aryt o i s s ue a ci t at i on, and thus hi s cons entt o s ear ch the vehi cl e w as the frui tof an unl aw ful det ent i on; and (2 ) t h e G o v e rn m e n t f

a ile d to e s ta b lis h th e w ir e ta p w a s n e c e s s a ry a s re q u ir e d b ys ta tu te . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 9 1
. F i n d i n g n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r , we a f f i r m. I. T he hi s t or i cal fac t s ar e noti n di s put e. O n J anuary28, 2004, agent s of the B ur eau of A l cohol , T obacco , and F i r earm s ( A T F) and off i cer s fr om the C ol or ado Spr i ngs Pol i ce D epart m entarr es t ed A del ai da M eza - C hai dez f ol l o w ing a cont r ol l ed pur chas e of
m ethamphet ami ne. A tthe t i m e of he rarr es t , M eza - C h aide z pos s es s ed appr oxi m at el y580 gr ams o f me th a mph e t a mi n e a n d $ 2 , 8 0 6 i n c a s h
. Off i c e r s a l s o s e i z e d a l e d g e rc o n t a i n i ng
names a nd phone number s of s us pect ed drug cus t om er s and sup p li ers. I n excha nge for i m m uni tyfr om pr os ecut i on i n fede ral cour t , M eza - C hai dez a gr eed t o cooper at e w i th l aw enfor cement . M eza - C hai dez i dent i fi ed D efe ndantas the ow nerof the drugs . She expl ai ned D efe ndantoper at ed a l ar ge drug- tr aff i cki ng or gani zat i on thattr ans por t ed met hamphet ami ne and cocaine from P ho enix, A ri zon a t o C olor ado S pri ng s and D env er, C olor ado
. S he als o
c o n s e n te d to re c o rd te le p h o n e c a lls to D e f e n d a n t. I n an unusual turn of event s , on February 2, 2004, T hom as N eve, an off i cerw i t h t he A r i zona D epartm ent of Publ i c Safety , w as patr ol l i ng I nt er s t at e 40 w es tbound i n C oconi no C o u n ty , A ri zo n a, w h en h e o b serv ed a p icku p tru ck that ap p ea red to h av e e x ce ssive lyd ark3

tin ted w in d o w s. O f

f ice r N e v e c o u ld n o t se e a n yo c c u p a n ts in th e v e h icle , w h ich c a u se d h im t o bel i eve the w i ndow s “w er e w ayt oo dark” and i n vi ol at i on of A r i zona l aw . H e pr ocee ded to st op the truck. O ffi cerN eve appr oache d the dr i ver , l at eri dent i fi ed as D efe ndant , and
as ked forhi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, r egi s tr at i on, and i ns ur ance . D efe ndan t p roduced a M exi can dr i ver ’ s li ce n se i dent i fy i ng hi m as O s m a G al avi z, and a ve hi cl e r egi s tr at i on s how i ng t he tru c k w a s re g is te re d in D e s M o in e s , Io w a , u n d e r a n o th e r p e rs o n ’s n a m e . O ff icer N ev e a sk ed D ef

en d an t t o step o u t o f th e tr u c k an d w aitb yh is pa tr o l car. O ffi cerN eve then pr ocee ded t o ques t i on D efe ndant ’ s pas s enger , C hr i s t i na A l var ado, about the natur e of the t r i p. A l var ado re s ponded t hey w er e on thei r w ay t o vi s i tD efe ndant ’ s s i s t er E l sa , and thats he l i ved at20th Str eet and I ndi an School i n Phoeni x. A l var ado furthers t at ed
s he l i ved w i th D efe ndant i n A l buquer que, N ew M exi co. U s i ng a w i ndow
- t i ntm et er , O ffi cer N eve tes t ed the w i nd ow ’s t i nt. T he t i nt w as three percent, an am ou nt excee ding t he d arkness A ri z o n a la w a llo w s . W hi l e pr epar i ng the ci t at i on, O ffi cer N eve ques t i oned D efe ndantaboutthe natur e of the tri p . D ef

en d an t t o ld O ff

icer N e v e th e yw ere o n their w ayto v isi t his si ster C h ris . D efe ndant t ol d O ffi cerN eve hi s s i s t erl i ved at20th A venue and I ndi an School i n Phoeni x. D efe ndantfur thers t at ed he l i ved i n I ow a. D efe ndant ’ s r es pons e s truck O ffi cerN eve a s odd beca us e i t w as i ncons i s t entw i th A l var ado’ s s t at ement s . W hi l e D efe ndantand A l var ado p ro v id e d s li g h tl y d if

f e r in g a d d r e s s e s f

o rD e f e n d a n t’ s s is te r ’ s h o m e , O f f ic e N e v e te stif

ied th is
w as s i gni fi cantbeca us e the addr es s es w er e on oppos i t e s i des of Phoeni x. O ffi cer N eve r an the s t atus of D efe ndant ’ s M exi can dr i ver ’ s l i cens e i n A r i zona, N ew M exi co, and I ow a, but4

f o u n d n o re c o rd s. S u sp icio u s, O f f ice r N e v e c a lled f

o r a b a c k u p u n it. W hen O ffi cerN eve f

i ni s hed w r i t i ng the ci t at i on, he hande d the ci t at i on t o D efe ndant al ong w i th hi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e and vehi cl e r egi s tr at i on. O ffi cer N eve then as ked D efe ndant if h e h a d a n ylar g e su m s o f c a sh , w e a p o n s, o r i lleg a l d ru g s. D e f e n d a n t in iti a lly sta ted h e d id not , butthen corr ect ed hi m s el f bys t at i ng he only h ad cas h forgas and tr avel
. D efe ndant
cons ent ed t o a s ear ch of the truck and s i gned a Spani s h- l anguage cons entform . D efe ndant sp o k e in S p a n ish b u t se e m e d to u n d e rsta n d O f f ice r N e v e . O f

f ice r N e v e c o m m u n ica ted w ith D efe ndanti n both S p ani s h and Engl i s h. Pr i ort o s ear chi ng hi s truck, O ffi cerN eve pa t t ed dow n D efe ndantas a s afe typr eca ut i on. O ffi cerN eve not i ced bul ges i n D efe ndant ’ s fr ont pocket s . W hen as ked aboutthe natur e of the bul ges , D efe n d an t r es ponded i tw as cas h. D e f e n d a n t p u lle d th e c a s h f ro m h is p o c k e ts a n d to ld O f f ic e r N e v e it w a s “ a b o u t $ 4 ,0 0 0 .” O ffi cerN eve t ook the ca s h and pl aced it in the w i nds hi el d of hi s patr ol cars o D efe ndant
c o u ld s e e it. D ur i ng the s ear ch, O ffi cer N eve found a handgun i ns i de A l var ado’ s pur s e. O ffi cer N eve a rr es t ed A l var ado forpos s es s i on of a c oncea l ed w eapon a nd pl ace d heri n the bac k of th e p a tro l ca r. F o r sa f

e tyre a so n s, O f

f ice r N e v e h a n d c u f

f e d D e f e n d a n t, bu t ex p lain e d to h im he w as notbei ng arr es t ed. A r ound thatt i m e, O ffi cerJ oe Lapr e and h is d o g arr i ved att he
s cene . O ffi cerL apr e t ook t he ca s h thatO ffi cerN eve ha d r ecove r ed fr om D efe ndantand pl ace d i t u n d e r n e a th th e h o o d o f th e tru c k
. Off

i c e rLa p r e th e n wal k e d h i s d o g a r o u n d t he truck. T he dog det ect ed a s cent of drugs i n a duff l e bag i n the bed of

the truck. A s ear ch of the bag unc over ed another$4, 000 i n cas h. T he dog al s o al ert ed t o the ca s h underthe hood5

o f th e tru c k . O f

f ice r N e v e re m o v e d D e f e n d a n t’s h a n d c u f

f s a n d a sk e d h im to f

o llo w h im back t o the hi ghw aypatr ol offi ce. A t the offi ce, O ffi cerN eve i ni t i at ed for fei tur e pr ocee di ngs on the money
. O ffi cerN eve a l s o i s s ued A l var ado a c i t at i on form i s demeanorpos s es s i on of a fi r earm and r el eas ed her
. O ffi cerN eve r eturned $50 t o D efe ndantfortr avel expens es , and
a l l o w e d D e f

e n d a n ta n d A l v a r a d o t o g o o n th e i rw a y. Du r i n g th e s e a r c h o f

th e tru c k , Of

f i c e rNe v e a l s o r e c o v e r e d f o u rc e l l p h o n e s . He
w r ot e dow n the num ber s l i s t ed as i ngoi ng and out goi ng cal l s , and turned the i nform at i on
overt o the F eder al D rug E nfor cement A dm i ni s tr at i on ( D E A )
. A gent J ohn Pr eeg, the l ead D E A agenti n thi s cas e, not i ced one of the phone num ber s m at ched a numberr ecove r ed fr om M e z a -C h a id e z ’ s le d g e r . M e z a - C h a id e z h a d id e n ti f ie d th e n u m b e ra s b e lo n g in g to D e f e n d a n t. A ft erfur theratt empt s t o us e M eza - C hai dez i n the i nves t i gat i on i nt o D efe ndant ’ s drug di s tr i but i on r i ng fai l ed, A gentPr eeg appl i ed fora w i r et ap author i zat i on fortw o phone
n u m b ers p u rpo rt ed ly b elon g ing to D ef en d an t. A g en t Pre eg su b m itted a n af fid av itin su p p o rt
o f th e w ire tap in w h ich h e e x p lain e d th a t n o rm a l an d ro u tin e in v e stig a tiv e tec h n iq u e s w o u ld be i neff ect i ve. W her e s uch t echni ques had bee n us ed, he ex p la i ned, theyei therfai l ed ent i r el yor had l i m i t ed succ es s , thus fai l i ng t o achi eve t he ful l obj ect i ves of the i nves t i gat i on. H e furtherexpl ai ned tr adi t i onal t ec h n iqu es w er e unl i kel yt o s ucce ed i f tr i ed orw er e t oo danger ous t o i m pl ement . Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, on M ar ch 10, 2004, the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed the ap p li ca ti o n rea so n ing “tha t an interce p ti o n is n ec essa ry in this c ase ” b ec au se “ itap p ea rs that there i s no o ther w ayt o g et the necessary i nfo rm at i on that [the G ov ernm ent] requi re[s ] underthe s t atut e otherthan w i th an i nt er cept i on. ” T he di s tr i ctcourtext ended the appl i cat i on6

o n A p ri l 9, 20 0 4 an d ag ain o n M ay7 , 2 0 0 4
. F o ll o w ing the in v esti g ati o n , a g ran d jury in d icte d D e f

e n d a n t.

II. I n chal l engi ng the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s the ca s h uncover ed dur i ng the s t op
o f h is v e h icle , D e f

e n d a n t d o e s n o t ar g u e O f f ice r N e v e lac k e d re a so n a b le su sp icio n to d e tain hi m base d o n O ff

icerN eve’ s obs ervat i on of a tr aff i c vi ol at i on. See e. g. U ni t ed St at es v. B os t er o- O s pi na, 71 F. 3d 783, 787 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( en banc ) ( “[A ] tr aff i c st op i s val i d under the F o u rth A m en d m en t i f th e sto p is ba sed o n an o b serv ed tr af fic v iolati o n .” ). R athe r, D e f e n d a n t ar g u e s O f

f ice r N e v e u n law f

u lly d e tain e d h im b e y o n d th e tim e it t o o k to e f f e c tu a te the purpos e of the s t op. A ccor di ng t o D efe ndant , O ffi cer N eve l acke d r eas onabl e s us pi ci on of cr i m i nal act i vi ty t o cont i nue det ai ni ng hi m aft er O ffi cerN eve r eturned hi s paperw or k and i s s ued hi m a ci t at i on. C ons equent l y , D efe ndant ar gues hi s cons entt o s ear ch the truck w as th e f ru it o f a n u n la w f

u l d e te n tio n . A tr aff i c s t op i s a sei zur e w i thi n the m eani ng of t he F our th A m endment , “eve n though the purpos e of the s t op i s l i m i t ed and the r es ul t i ng d et ent i on qui t e br i ef. ” D el aw ar e v. Pr ous e, 440 U
. S. 648, 653 ( 1979)
. A tr aff i c s t op i s r eas onabl e i f ( 1) the offi cer ’ s act i on w as j us t i fi ed ati t s i ncept i on, and (2) the off i cer ’ s act i on w as r eas onabl yr el at ed t o t he ci r cumst ance s w hi ch j us t i fi ed the s t op i n the fi r s tpl ace . See U ni t ed St at es v. B r adfor d, 423 F. 3d 1149, 1156 ( 10th C i r . 2005)
. W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of
re a s o n a b le n e s s d e n o v o . S e e R o s b o ro u g h , 3 6 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 4 8
.7

A n o f f ice r c o n d u c tin g a tra f f ic s to p m a yre q u e st a d riv e r’s lice n se , v e h icle
r egist rati o n , run a comput erchec k, and i s s ue a c i t at i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. Z ubi aM el endez , 263 F. 3d 1155, 1161 ( 10th C i r . 2001)
. O nce an offi cer compl et es thes e t as ks , t he offi cer m us t al l ow the dr i ver t o pr ocee d on hi s w ayw i thoutbei ng s ubj ectt o fur therdel ayby pol i ce f oraddi t i onal ques t i oni ng. See i d. ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. E dgert on, 438 F. 3d 1043, 1047 ( 10th C i r . 2006)
. A bs enta cons ens ual encount er , fur therdet ent i on forpurposes of q u e stio n in g u n re late d to th e in iti a l tra f f ic sto p is p e rm iss ib le if

th e o f f ice r h a s a n o b

jec tiv e ly
r eas onabl e and a r t i cul abl e s us pi ci on thati l l egal act i vi tyhas occurred o r i s occurr i ng. See Z ub i a-M el end ez, 26 3 F
. 3d at11 61
. R easona ble s uspici on exis t s w here an o ffi cer has a “part i cul ar i zed a nd obj ect i ve bas i s fors us pect i ng l egal w r ongd o ing
. ” U ni t ed St at es v. A r vi zu, 534 U
. S. 266, 273 ( 2002)
. W e det erm i ne w hetherr eas onabl e s us pi ci on exi s t s fr om th e to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . S e e id
. W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthatO ffi cerN eve de vel oped r eas onabl e s us pi ci on duri n g the tr aff

i c s t op t o j us t i fyD efe ndant ’ s cont i nued det ent i on aft erhe r etur ned D efe ndant ’ s paperw or k and i s s ued hi m a ci t at i on forexce s sive w i ndow t i nt i ng. W e have p re v io u slyh e ld th a t co n tra d icto rya n sw e rs to a n o f f ic e r’s q u e stio n s c a n c o n trib u te to
r eas onabl e s us pi ci on of i l l egal act i vi ty . S ee , e.g. , Z ubi a- M el endez , 263 F. 3d at1162 ( r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n e x i s t e d wh e r e p a s s e n g e ra n d d r i ve rd i d n o tk n o w e a c h o th e r ’ s n a me and provided inconsi sten t a n sw e rs regar ding w here theyhad spent the n i gh t ). S ee al so U ni t ed St at es v. W al l ace , 429 F. 3d 969, 976 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( r eas onabl e s us pi ci on pr es ent
w h e re th e d riv e r a n d p a ss e n g e r g a v e th e o f f ice r in c o n sis ten t an sw e rs r e g a rd in g th e irD efe ndantal s o ar gues O ffi cerN eve vi ol at ed hi s Four th A m endmentr i ght s w hen 3 the off i cerunr eas onabl ypr ol onged the tr aff i c s t op byconduct i ng addi t i onal i nves t i gat i on 8 r el at i ons hi p and the type of m ot or cy cl e they w er e tr ans por t i ng)
. U ndoubt edl y , s om e of the fac t or s O ffi cerN eve c i t ed as m aki ng hi m s us pi ci ous m ay , standi ng al one, be di s m i s s ed as i nnocentors us cept i bl e t o vary i ng i nt erpret at i ons . N everthel es s , a “de t erm i nat i on t hat
re a s o n a b l e s u s p ic io n e x is ts . . . n e e d n o t ru le o u t th e p o s s ib ility o f in n o c e n t c o n d u c t.” A rv izu , 5 3 4 U .S
. a t 2 7 7
. W h e n d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a de ten tio n is su p p o rte d b yre a so n a b le suspi ci on , w e m ust“def er t o the abi l i tyof a trai ned l aw enfo rcem ent off i cer t o d i st i ng uis h betw een inno cent and suspici ou s act i on s. ” Z ub i a-M el end ez, 26 3 F
. 3d at11 62 ; s ee al so A r vi zu, 534 U
. S. at273- 74 ( not i ng offi cer s m aydr aw fr om thei row n exper i ence and sp ec ial ized tr ainin g to m a k e inf ere n ce s tha t m ayv eryw ell elud e a n u n tr aine d p erso n ). Sl i ght l yconfl i ct i ng ans w er s , s uch as thos e D efe ndantand A l var ado gave t o O ffi cerN eve,
m ayes t abl i s h a part i cul ar i zed a nd obj ect i ve bas i s forr eas onabl e s us pi ci on, notw i ths t andi ng tha te a c h o f the fa c t or s a l on e i s s us c e pt i bl e t o i nn oc e nt e xp l a na t i on . Se e A r vi z u, 53 4 U. S. at277; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. Sokol o w , 4 9 0 U
. S. 1, 9 ( 1989) ( hol di ng a fa ct orm ay contr i but e t o r eas onabl e s us pi ci on even w her e i t“i s not by i t s el f pr oof of any i l l egal conduct and i s qui t e cons i s t entw i th i nnocenttr avel ”)
. T he i ncons i s t enci es , s een t hr ough the ey es of a t r ai ne d l a w en f

o r c e me n to f

f i c e r , s u p p o r ta f

i n d i n g o f r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n a n d j u s t i fi ed D efe ndant ’ s pr ol onged det ent i on. B eca us e D efe ndantvol unt ar i l ycons ent ed t o a s ear ch of hi s truck w hi l e l aw ful l ydet ai ned, no bas i s exi s t s fors uppr es s i ng the evi dence uncover ed dur i ng the s ear ch. 3un rel at ed to the w i nd ow t i nt. A ccordi ng t o D efen dan t , the “u nd i sputed fact s” est abli sh

th a t w riting a c itatio n f

o r illeg a l w in d o w tin tin g w o u ld h a v e tak e n six m in u tes , b u t th a t in thi s cas e O ffi cerN eve t ook tw i ce thatl ong beca us e of the off i cer ’ s deci s i on t o conductan inv esti g ati o n u n related to the p u rpo se o f th e sto p . T h e re co rd, ho w ev er, do es n o t sup p o rt D efe ndant ’ s ar gum ent . T he r ecor d s how s thatupon s t oppi ng D efe ndant , O ffi cerN eve obt ai ned D efe ndant ’ s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, r egi s tr at i on, and i ns ur ance paper s ; r an the s t atus of D ef en d an t’ s li ce n se a n d the v eh icl e’s reg istrati o n ; m ea su red the tint l ev el of the truc k ’s w i nd ow ; and dis cussed w i th D efen dan tand A l varado theirtravel plans. A s he did these thi ngs , he compl et ed w r i t i ng the ci t at i on. O ffi cerN eve di d notconductanyi nves t i gat i on un rel at ed to the p urpose o f t he st op . A s partof a rou t i ne tr affic s t op , an o ffi cer m ay“ask q u e stio n s a b o u t th e m o to rist’s tra v e l p lan s a n d a u th o rityto o p e ra te th e v e h icle ” in addi t i on t o obt ai ni ng a mot or i s t ’ s document at i on, runni ng a comput erchec k, ques t i oni ng a pas s engerabouttr avel pl ans , and i s s ui ng a ci t at i on. U ni t ed St at es v. A l car az- A r el l ano, 441 F. 3d 1252, 1258 ( 10th C i r . 2006)
. Pr es um abl y , had O ffi cerN eve notver i fi ed D efe ndant ’ s document at i on oras ked anyques t i ons he w oul d have c om pl et ed the ci t at i on so o n e r. N e v e rth e les s, O f f ice r N e v e ’s c o n d u c t w a s re late d to th e p u rp o se o f th e tra f f ic s to p a n d s a n c tio n e d b yo u r p re c e d e n t. 9 III
. D efen dan tal so chall eng es the d i stri ctcou rt ’s order deny in g h is m oti on t o sup press
c o n v e rsa tio n s th e G o v e r n m e n t re c o rd e d p u rsu a n t to a w ire tap . H e a rg u e s th e a f f id a v its in
s uppor tof the w i r et ap appl i cat i on and s ubs equent ext ens i ons di d notes t abl i s h a nec es s i tyfor the w i r et ap as r equi r ed underT i t l e I I I of the O m ni bus C r i m e C ontr ol and Safe St r eet s A ct of 1968. See 18 U
. S. C
. §§ 2518( 1) ( c) , 2518( 3) ( c)
. M or e spec i fi cal l y , D efe ndantar gues t he aff i davi t s fai l ed t o s t at e w i th part i cul ar i tyw hythe G overnm entd id n o t p u r s ue tr adi t i onal i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques , buti ns t ead, contained boi l erpl at e l anguage thatcoul d be appl i ed to all dru g co n sp ir ac yca s e s. W e re v iew fo r an ab u se o f d iscreti o n a d istri ct co u rt ’s det erm i nat i on a w i r et ap i s nece s s ary . See U ni t ed St at es v. R ami r ez- E ncarnaci on, 291 F. 3d 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).10

A n o rd e r a u th o riz in g a w ire tap is p re su m e d p ro p e r, an d a d e f e n d a n t ch a lle n g in g its author i zat i on bear s the bur den of pr ovi ng i t s i nval i di ty . See U ni t ed St at es v. C as t i l l o- G ar ci a, 1 1 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by R ami r ez- E ncarnaci on, 291 F. 3d at1221, n. 1. I n or dert o obt ai n a w ir etap , the G overnm entm us t , among ot her thing s, sh o w the w i r et ap i s nece s s ary . See 18 U
. S. C
. §§ 2518( 1) ( c) , 2518( 3) ( c)
. T he G overnm entes t abl i s hes nece s s i tyb ysh o w ing “trad it ion al i n v esti g ati v e tec h n iqu es h av e b een tried u n su c c e ss f

u lly , rea so n a b lya p p e a r to b e u n su c c e ss f u l if trie d , o r a re to o d a n g e ro u s to att em p t. ” R am i r ez- E ncarnaci on, 291 F. 3d at1222. W her e the G overnm entdoes not i m pl ementtr adi t i onal i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques , i t m us texpl ai n w hyw i th part i cul ar i ty . See C as t i l l o- G ar ci a, 117 F. 3d at1187- 88. T r adi t i onal i nves t i gat i v e t echni ques i ncl ude ( 1)
s t andar d vi s ual and aur al s ur vei l l ance ; ( 2) ques t i oni ng of w i tnes s es orpart i ci pant s ( i ncl udi ng the u se of gr and j uri es and the grant of im m un i tyi f nec essary ); (3) use of sear ch w arr ants ; ( 4) i nfi l tr at i on of cons pi r at or i al gr oups byunder coveragents o r in formant s ; and ( 5) pen
r egi s t er s and tr ap and tr ace devi ces . U ni t ed St at es v. V anmet er , 278 F. 3d 1156, 1163- 64 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). W e c o n d u c t o u r re v iew o f th e G o v e rn m e n t’s d e m o n stra tio n o f n e c e ss ity

“ in a p ra c tica l a n d c o m m o n se n se f a sh io n ” c o n sid e rin g “ a ll o f th e f a c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s in
o r d e rt o d e t e r m i n e w h e th e rth e g o v e rn m e n t ’ s s h o w i n g o f n e c e s s i ty i s s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f

y a
w i r et ap. ” C as t i l l o- G ar ci a, 117 F. 3d at1187. H avi ng thor oughl y r evi ew ed t he affi davi t s i n s uppor t of t he w i r et ap appl i cat i on and
s ubs equentext ens i ons , w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourt the G overnm entpr oper l yes t abl i s hed
a nec es s i tyfora w i r et ap. W e nee d not r ecounther e the G overnm ent ’ s ext ens i ve des cr i pt i on11

o f its e f f o rts to im p lem e n t th e tra d iti o n a l in v e stig a tiv e tec h n iq u e s d e sc rib e d a b o v e , o r its expl anat i on as t o w hys om e of thes e t echni ques w oul d not ai d i n the i nves t i gat i on. Suffi ce it t o sa y , the f

o rty -se v e n p a g e a f

f id a v it i n su p p o rt o f

th e a p p lica tio n a n d th e a f f id a v its in
s uppor tof the ext ens i ons expl ai n w i th s uffi ci entdet ai l the i nves t i gat ive ef fo rt s t he G o v e rn m e n t u n d e rto o k a n d e x p lain w ith p a rticu lar ity th e re a so n s w h y th e G o v e rn m e n t d id
n o t p u rs u e c e rt a in tr a d itio n a l in v e s tig a tiv e te c h n iq u e s . D e f e n d a n t h a s ra n d o m lyq u o ted p o rtio n s o f th e a f f id a v its in a rg u in g th e a f f id a v its
con t ai n b oil erpl at e st at em ents app l i c a b le to t he v astm aj ori ty , i f no tal l , drug co nspir aci es. U n su rp risin g ly , h o w e v e r, m a n yd ru g c o n sp ira c ies sh a re sim ilar c h a ra c ter istic s a n d th e ir inv esti g ati o n p rese n ts si m il ar d ifficu lt ies fo r l aw en fo rce m en t. G en era liti es a lon e “ are i ns uffi cien tt o s uppor ta w i r et ap appl i cat i on. ” C as t i l l o- G ar ci a, 117 F. 3d at1188. B ut gener al i t i es “ca n be made s o l ong as th ey are ac co m pani ed bys peci fi c i nform at i on about h o w th e s e g e n e ra li t i e s a p p ly to th e p a rt ic u la r s u s p e c ts a n d /o r p a rt ic u la r i n v e s tig a tio n .” U n it ed S tat es v . M asc are n as, 3 0 F ed
. A p p x . 7 8 4 , 7 9 4 , n . 1 0 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ) (un p u b li sh ed ). T o the e x tent the G o v ern m en t’ s af fid av it co n tai n s so m e g en era li ti es, th ese g en era li ti es a re
a c c o m p a n ie d b yin f

o rm a tio n p e rt in e n t to th is in v e s tig a tio n . B yw ayof exa m pl e, D efe ndantpoints o u t the G overnm entr ej ect ed the us e of under coveragent s as unl i kel yt o be frui t ful beca us e, i n the w or ds of the G overnm ent , “drug tr aff i cker s do notl i ke t o i ntr oduce a s s oci at es t o the i rs uppl i er s . ” D efe ndantar gues s uch gener al i t i es appl yt o al l drug cons pi r aci es and ar e i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of necessi ty . T he af

fi dav i t , ho w ever, say s m uch m ore i n thi s r egard. T he af fi dav i tprovides aD ef en d an t al so arg u es th e G o v ern m en t use d m inim al i n v esti g ati v e e ff o rt s b ef o re 4 s eeki ng a w i r et ap. D efe ndantar gues , forexampl e, thatthe G overnm ents houl d have att empt ed t o i nfi l tr at e the or gani zat i on thr ough the us e of unde r coveragent s . W e have e x p lain e d , h o w e v e r, th a t “th e g o v e rn m e n t n e e d n o t ex h a u st . . . e v e ryc o n c e iv a b le i nves t i gat i ve t echni que bef or e r es or t i ng t o w i r et appi ng. ” C as t i l l o- G ar ci a, 117 F. 3d at 1188. R ather , w e have “r equi r ed the governm entt o pr ove exha us t i on–ei therbyatt empt orexpl anat i on of w hythe met hod w oul d notw or k–of al l r eas onabl e i nves t i gat i ve m e th o d s .” Id . T h e G o v e rn m e n t m e t its o b lig a tio n in th is c a s e . 12 des cr i pt i on of how D efe ndant ’ s d ru g - tr a f f i c k i n g o p e r a t i o n s work e di n Col o r ado, and expl ai ns thatD efe ndantonl ydi d bus i nes s w i th a few i ndi vi dual s w ho had bee n i n the or gani zat i on for
a lo n g tim e . T h e a f

f id a v it g o e s o n to e x p lain th e d if f icu lti e s a ss o c iate d w ith a n a ttem p t to i nfi l tr at e D efe ndant ’ s oper at i on. I n part i cul ar , the af fi davi texpl ai ns th at if an under cover
a g e n t w e re in tro d u c e d , a re latio n sh ip o th e r th a n th a t o f a d ru g b u y e r to d ru g se ller w o u ld
u n lik e lye x ist, an d th a t D e f e n d a n t p ro b a b ly w o u ld n o t sh a re in f o rm a tio n a b o u t su p p liers w ith
a s tr eet - l evel buy er . C ontr aryt o D efe ndant ’ s ar gum ent , the af fi davi texpl ai ns i n m or e than gener al i t i es thatthe t i ght
- kni tnatur e of D ef endant ’ s oper at i on m ade i nfi l tr at i on i nt o t he
c o n sp ira c yim p ra c tica b le. T h e G o v e rn m e n t’s a f f id a v its s u f

f icie n tlye sta b lish e d n e c e ss ity 4
a s d e f in e d b yth e w ire tap sta tu te a n d u n d e rsto o d b yo u r p re c e d e n t. T h e re f o re , n o b a sis e x ists f o r s u p p re s s in g th e re c o rd e d c o n v e rs io n s . A F F IR M E D
. E n ter e d f o r th e C o u rt,

B obbyR
. B al dock C i r cui tJ udge