Opinion ID: 692854
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Illegal wiretap claim

Text: 5 Mendes claims that the evidence against her should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal wiretap because the affidavit supporting the wiretap did not establish that interception was necessary, as required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1)(c). This claim fails. The government submitted an exhaustive account of the course of this investigation and the reasons why traditional search warrants would prematurely disclose the existence of the investigation. The affidavit was full and complete and amply supported the government's claim of necessity. See United States v. Brown, 761 F.2d 1272, 1275 (9th Cir.1985). The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the wiretap was necessary. United States v. Torres, 908 F.2d 1417, 1422 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 905 and 498 U.S. 948 (1990).