Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/959/124/220247/
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 17:13:33
Document Index: 342811699

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 846', '§ 843', '§ 843', '§ 641', '§ 22', '§ 2518', '§ 22', '§ 2518', '§ 2518']

United States of America, Appellee, v. Steven M. Muchnick A/k/a Munch, Appellant, 959 F.2d 124 (8th Cir. 1992) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eighth Circuit › 1992 › United States of America, Appellee, v. Steven M. Muchnick A/k/a Munch, Appellant
United States of America, Appellee, v. Steven M. Muchnick A/k/a Munch, Appellant, 959 F.2d 124 (8th Cir. 1992)
US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 959 F.2d 124 (8th Cir. 1992)
Submitted Nov. 11, 1991. Decided March 24, 1992
Steven M. Muchnick appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court1 for the Western District of Missouri, upon a jury verdict, finding him guilty of one count of conspiracy to distribute diazepam and alprazolam in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 846, 841 (West Supp.1991), nine counts of use of a telephone to facilitate the distribution of diazepam and alprazolam in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 843(a) (West 1981 & West Supp.1991), four counts of distribution of diazepam and alprazolam in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 843(b) (West 1981), and one count of theft of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 641, 642 (West 1976). The district court sentenced Muchnick to two years probation on each count to be served concurrently, a fine of $1,200.00 on the theft of government property count, restitution of $83.76, and a special assessment of $750.00. For reversal, Muchnick argues that the district court2 erred in (1) failing to suppress the evidence obtained from intercepted wire communications and (2) failing to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant based upon the intercepted wire communications. We have thoroughly reviewed the district court record and affirm the judgment of the district court.
Muchnick's arguments on appeal all relate to the wiretap order and the intercepted phone calls. Muchnick argues that the wiretap application did not include a particularized or specific description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted as required by Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-2516(1) (b) (iii), which mirrors 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518(1) (b) (iii) (West Supp.1991). Secondly, Muchnick argues that the wiretap application and affidavit failed to establish the probable cause necessary to support the wiretap order as required in Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-2516(3) (a), (b), which mirrors 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518(3) (a), (b) (West 1970). Finally, Muchnick argues that the wiretap application and affidavit failed to explain fully why other investigative techniques had not been tried or would be unlikely to succeed as required by Kan.Stat.Ann. 22-2516(1) (c), which mirrors 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518(1) (c) (West 1970). Because the search warrant application was based upon evidence obtained from the intercepted telephone calls, Muchnick alleges that all evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant should also be suppressed.
Steven Muchnick appeals from pre-trial orders issued by The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri