Opinion ID: 414332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Application Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1)(c)

Text: 123 Under the Act, an application for a wiretap must include, inter alia, a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1)(c). 124 The seminal case in this circuit on this issue is United States v. Scibelli, 549 F.2d 222 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 960, 97 S.Ct. 2687, 53 L.Ed.2d 278 (1977), in which we discussed the requirements of section 2518(1)(c) in light of its legislative history and the case law. Id. at 226-28. We identified three basic considerations: (1) An appeals court's role is not to make a de novo determination of sufficiency as if it were a district judge, but to decide if the facts set forth in the application were minimally adequate to support the determination that was made; (2) the inquiry is whether the affidavit provided a sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause; and (3) in determining the sufficiency of the application a reviewing court must test it in a practical and commonsense manner. Id. at 226 (citations omitted). We pointed out that section 2518(1)(c) was not intended to force the government to exhaust all other investigative procedures before resorting to a wiretap application. Id. at 226. See also United States v. Almonte, 594 F.2d 261, 264 (1st Cir.1979); United States v. Gerardi, 586 F.2d 896, 897-98 (1st Cir.1978); United States v. Santarpio, 560 F.2d 448, 452 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 984, 98 S.Ct. 609, 54 L.Ed.2d 478 (1977). 125 With these considerations in mind, we turn to an examination of the application. The pertinent portions of the affidavit can be summarized as follows: The telephone facilities are located in private premises so that it is impossible for law enforcement officials to observe the gambling activities within the premises (para. 24). The informants have all indicated that they are unwilling to testify for fear of their lives (para. 25). Immunity will not work because those with the important knowledge are those who will be prosecuted (para. 25a). Raids and searches of individuals are usually not productive in gambling cases (para. 26). Infiltrating the gambling operation would not result in identifying all those involved (para. 27). These facts constitute an adequate explanation of why other investigatory procedures would not be likely to succeed. 126 We hold that under the standards of this circuit the district court's authorization order must be upheld. 127