Opinion ID: 682059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Wiretap Authorization

Text: 31 Karl Wingo and Venus Coleman each challenge the admission of evidence gathered pursuant to the wiretap, claiming that it was improperly authorized. They argue that the affidavit in support of the wiretap application failed to state specifically why normal investigative procedures would prove inadequate, and that it failed to comply with the necessity requirement of the Federal Wiretap Act. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1)(c). Both cite United States v. Kalustian, 529 F.2d 585, 590 (9th Cir.1975), and claim the affidavit contains only conclusory assertions, rather than facts, concerning the necessity of the wiretap. 32 We find that the affidavit fully complied with the necessity requirement. See United States v. Alfano, 838 F.2d 158, 163-64 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 821 (1988) (requiring only that serious consideration be given to non-wiretap techniques). The fact that an affidavit may contain some statements equally applicable to any drug case does not render it insufficient. The instant affidavit contains information about particular facts of this case demonstrating the consideration given to normal investigative procedures. These facts show essentially that normal procedures had been exploited as far as they could, but could not determine the full extent of the conspiracy. The affidavit refers to the use of counter-surveillance, and the unwillingness of informants to testify because of fear of reprisal, as further proof of the necessity of the wiretap. 33 In addition to challenging the necessity of the wiretap, Coleman also questions whether it was authorized properly, and if the minimization requirement was met. She claims an evidentiary hearing should have been held on the matter. Her claims in this respect fail. The application was specifically approved by Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Paul L. Mahoney, who held a position specifically delegated authority to approve wiretaps by then-Attorney General Thornburgh. Coleman also does not identify any conversations that should not have been intercepted. Having failed to show a prima facie pattern of insufficient minimization over the period of the surveillance, United States v. Giacalone, 853 F.2d 470, 482 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 910 (1988), Coleman was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The wiretap order described the types of conversations to be seized with sufficient particularity. Id. at 481. Thus, the district court properly denied Coleman's motions for an evidentiary hearing as it contained only conclusory allegations as to minimization.