Opinion ID: 2800623
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Omitted Information About Corales

Text: Burgos' next argument trains on the so-called necessity requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c). This subsection provides that wiretaps are generally only available when the government shows with a full and complete statement . . . 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. Id. 6 Our conclusion that the affidavit contained a sufficient basis to establish probable cause for the wiretap at the time of the Title III application also disposes of Burgos' argument that the information contained in the affidavit was stale. -11- According to Burgos, the affidavit's claim that a wiretap was necessary was deficient because it did not provide full and complete information about Corales. Specifically, Burgos argues that the affidavit did not give any indication that Corales had sometimes worked as an informant and could potentially be used as one in this investigation. Burgos argues that a wiretap could not have been necessary until the government first tried to use Corales as an informant. In considering a claim that improperly omitted facts undermine the necessity of a wiretap, we use a similar approach to that which we use to assess a claim that such omissions undermine probable cause: we ask whether, had the omitted information been included, there would still have been a minimally adequate basis for determining that the wiretap was necessary.7 See United States v. Cartagena, 593 F.3d 104, 109-11 (1st Cir. 2010). The answer to this question is yes. The affidavit explained why normal investigative techniques were not expected to yield results. In particular, agents had twice tried and failed to arrange a buy-bust, and using other informants was dangerous, given what appeared to have happened to Semidey. That explanation provides more than adequate support for a conclusion that the exigencies did not warrant further delay in order to try to recruit 7 We do not read the minimally adequate standard to differ substantively from the sufficiency standard applied to a challenge that omissions undermine probable cause. See footnote 4, supra. -12- yet another confidential informant, much less for what appeared to be an exceedingly dangerous mission. See 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c) (recognizing that some investigative techniques may be too dangerous). Whether Corales could have been recruited as an informant (or even the fact that he later acquired his own reasons to volunteer as an informant, as discussed in footnote 10 of this opinion) is therefore beside the point.