Opinion ID: 2632549
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Consider Aerial Surveillance or Witness Relocation

Text: Finally, defendants claim the affidavit was deficient in failing to consider two additional investigative techniques: aerial surveillance and witness relocation. Before analyzing these techniques, we note at the outset that courts are reluctant to impose their hindsight upon law enforcement agencies, and the proponent of the application need not establish that `every other imaginable mode of investigation would be unsuccessful.' ( U.S. v. Guerra-Marez, supra, 928 F.2d at p. 670.) In particular, [a]fter-the-fact suggestions by defense attorneys as to how an investigation might have been handled are entitled to little weight in the analysis.... The fact that the government could have taken some different or additional steps in its investigation does not demonstrate that the wiretap orders were issued in error, because `[t]he government need not exhaust or explain its failure to exhaust every conceivable investigative procedure before resorting to wiretapping.' ( U.S. v. Carrillo, supra, 123 F.Supp.2d at p. 1245.) Indeed, Congress acknowledged that [m]erely because a normal investigative technique is theoretically possible, it does not follow that it is likely. (Sen.Rep. No. 1097, supra, 1968 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News, at p. 2190.) Neither of the techniques above was likely to have succeeded in fulfilling the goals of the investigation. Aerial surveillance falls within the affidavit's category of Physical Surveillance and suffers from the same limitations and the same risks as surveillance on foot or by automobile. Indeed, as recounted in the application for wiretap No. 00-04, the task force did engage in aerial surveillance on January 26, 2000. However, the helicopter lost the visual of the open trunk because it had to orbit, and a member of the organization subsequently became aware of the surveillance and employed countersurveillance techniques. Knowledge of the physical surveillance, of course, only increased the necessity for the wiretap. ( U.S. v. Decoud, supra, 456 F.3d at p. 1007; U.S. v. Ashley, supra, 876 F.2d at p. 1075.) As to placing cooperating high-level members of the organization into a witness relocation program, defendants have made no showing that any such person had wanted not only to withdraw from the conspiracy but also to relocate with his or her loved ones under a new identity. ( U.S. v. Carrillo, supra, 123 F.Supp.2d at p. 1236 [The investigators had no basis to believe any of the participants would be willing to cooperate].) Accordingly, approaching a member of the organization with an offer to enter a relocation program posed the same risk of compromising the investigation as did approaching a member of the organization with an offer of immunity. (See U.S. v. Gruttadauria (E.D.N.Y.2006) 439 F.Supp.2d 240, 248.) In neither circumstance can the affidavit be faulted for failing to identify these particular investigative techniques by name instead of by category, nor have defendants offered any reason for second-guessing law enforcement's assessment of the relative risks and benefits of either technique. As demonstrated above, the wiretap was not sought as the first step in this investigation, nor did the government bypass viable alternative techniques in a rush to use this extraordinary method of investigation. Few threats to liberty exist which are greater than that posed by the use of eavesdropping devices ( Berger v. New York (1967) 388 U.S. 41, 63, 87 S.Ct, 1873, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040) but, as our Legislature has recognized, that liberty must yield to the real needs of law enforcement in appropriate circumstances. (See § 630.) None of defendants' proposed alternatives, taken singly or in combination, offered a realistic prospect of exposing the extent and structure of the conspiracy without the assistance of wiretaps. ( U.S. v. Plescia (7th Cir.1995) 48 F.3d 1452, 1463.) In short, defendants have not shown that Judge Fidler acted unreasonably in concluding that the affidavit supporting the application for wiretap No. 00-02 established necessity for the wiretap.