Opinion ID: 2803541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Antowan Logan

Text: Antowan Logan asserts that Application #3 and Application #4 did not establish necessity, restating the previous arguments. For aforementioned reasons, both of these wiretap applications satisfied the statutory necessity requirement. Logan further advances an individualized argument, claiming that necessity was not satisfied as it related to him specifically because he was a regional, low-level participant in the drug conspiracy who was not a significant target of the investigation. Logan, however, waived this particular argument. His motion below generically challenged “the affidavits” for containing boilerplate language and failing to establish necessity, but he never asserted his role in the conspiracy affected the necessity calculus. This argument cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d at 738.