Opinion ID: 2632549
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pen Registers

Text: Defendants complain that the affidavit merely identified the limitations of pen registers and similar techniques and therefore could not establish necessity for a wiretap. We disagree. [Although the affidavit's assertions of inadequacy `might appear boilerplate, the fact that drug investigations suffer from common investigatory problems does not make these problems less vexing.' ( U.S. v. Thompson, supra, 210 F.3d at p. 859.) Moreover, the affidavit stated that the task force had already compared toll records for Target Telephone # 1 with the discarded target telephone, which had provided the basis for their suspicion that the users were the same or close associates, and announced that the task force intended to initiate a pen register on Target Telephone # 1. Because these alternate techniques had not (and could not) identify the persons making or receiving the communications, the contents of the conversations, or whether the communications were in furtherance of the drug operation, they could not significantly advance or achieve the objectives of the: investigation. ( U.S. v. Carrillo, supra, 123 F.Supp.2d at p. 1241; see also U.S. v. Decoud (9th Cir.2006) 456 F.3d 996,1007.)