Opinion ID: 2981544
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Probable Cause - June Affidavit

Text: Sims contends it was error for the district court to find that probable cause existed for the initial wiretap. “The basic standards for a wiretap are similar to those for a search warrant . . . . Under this standard, the question that must be decided in issuing a warrant is whether there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be uncovered.” Alfano, 838 F.2d at 161-62. The main basis for Sims’s argument is that the cell phone was registered to Qiana Lawson not to Sims. However, as with code language, it is common for drug conspirators to register their phones under different names, and that fact cannot on its own defeat probable cause. The only probable cause necessary is that the phone itself is being used in connection 12 No. 11-6353 United States v. Sims with an offense or commonly used by someone committing the offense. See United States v. Giacalone, 853 F.2d 470, 478 (6th Cir. 1988). There were many facts in the affidavit that supported a finding of probable cause that the phone was used in the drug conspiracy and that Sims was using it. These facts included: (a) information gathered from the Detroit wire, including conversations by an unknown male believed to be Sims; (b) Vaughn’s cell-phone contact list which indicated the phone number in question belonged to Sims; (c) information from SOI-9 that Sims was involved in distributing cocaine; (d) detailed information from toll records and the pen register connecting Sims to the cocaine organization; and (e) over 200 calls using the phone in June 2004 to and from others known to be involved in the cocaine organization, including Flenory. Given all of these facts, and the deference owed to the issuing judge, it was not clear error for the district court to find probable cause.