Opinion ID: 2632549
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Relevance of the Conspiracy Allegations

Text: Defendants argue next that section 629.52(d) does not set forth a lower standard of necessity for conspiracy cases. We agree that a mere allegation that a person is a member of a conspiracy ... is not a sufficient reason to obtain a wiretap ( U.S. v. Carneiro (9th Cir.1988) 861 F.2d 1171, 1181), but the People make no such argument here. They argue instead, correctly, that the fact of a conspiracy is a circumstance to be considered, along with all the other facts and circumstances, in determining whether conventional investigative techniques have failed, are unlikely to succeed if tried, or are too dangerous to try. For example, persons involved in a conspiracy almost invariably will discuss their plans, methods, and goals with other members of the conspiracy. A solitary criminal, on the other hand, is unlikely to discuss the crime with others. Concerted action, moreover, increases the likelihood that the criminal object will be successfully attained and decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality. ( Callanan v. United States (1961) 364 U.S. 587, 593, 81 S.Ct. 321, 5 L.Ed.2d 312; accord, People v. Zamora (1976) 18 Cal.3d 538, 555-556, 134 Cal.Rptr. 784, 557 P.2d 75.) And, [u]nlike individual criminal action, which comes to an end upon the capture of the criminal, collective criminal action has a life of its own. Like the Hydra of Greek mythology, the conspiracy may survive the destruction of its parts unless the conspiracy is completely destroyed. For even if some or many of the conspirators are imprisoned, others may remain at large, free to recruit others eager to break the law and to pursue the conspiracy's illegal ends. ( U.S. v. McGuire, supra, 307 F.3d at pp. 1197-1198.) Thus, in many cases, the existence of a conspiracy will suggest not only that there will be communications in order to plan the crime, but that such planning will occur almost exclusively during such communications. Furthermore, the existence of the conspiracy may not only increase the likelihood any given crime will succeed, but also the likelihood the criminal enterprise will survive the arrest of less than all of its participantswhich is precisely what occurred when the government made its first round of arrests of members of the Arellano-Felix drug trafficking organization. In sum, the existence of a conspiracy, while not determinative, is an important factor in analyzing the necessity for a wiretap. (Cf. Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 140, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 56 L.Ed.2d 168 [when the investigation is focusing on what is thought to be a widespread conspiracy more extensive surveillance may be justified in an attempt to determine the precise scope of the enterprise].) In this case, no one disputes that telephones were the primary means of communication among the conspirators. It would have been difficult if not impossible by means other than wiretap to determine the scope of the conspiracy or to develop enough evidence to successfully prosecute the conspirators. ( U.S. v. Carrillo (D.Colo.2000) 123 F.Supp.2d 1223, 1245; accord, U.S. v. Khan (9th Cir.1993) 993 F.2d 1368,1370, 1375.)