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

Heading: Physical Surveillance

Text: Defendants characterize the affidavit's analysis of physical surveillance as stating that it is just too bothersome to follow a suspect around while he does `trivial errands'  and assert that [b]lanket surveillance may be inconvenient and costly, but it can be done and does work. Yet, as the affidavit discloses, limited surveillance had already been conducted at defendants' residence without success, and the task force knew of no other locations at which to conduct surveillance, especially since the identity and whereabouts of the user of Target Telephone # 1 were unknown. Moreover, the affidavit's reference to trivial errands was merely to illustrate that without the wiretap, the task force would have to place the known targets under blanket surveillance, which would make it highly likely the surveillance would be detected and the investigation compromised. (See U.S. v. Martinez, supra, 452 F.3d at p. 5; see generally U.S. v. Ashley (1st Cir.1989) 876 F.2d 1069,1075.)