Opinion ID: 202274
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Broad investigative goals

Text: 22 Martinez also argues that the government may not manufacture necessity by defining its investigative goals so broadly and so generally that a wiretap could be obtained in any drug investigation. Specifically, he claims that the government clearly and intentionally defined the goals of the Martinez investigation in such broad terms so as to insure that normal techniques of investigation were incapable of achieving them. 23 In support of this position, Martinez cites the Ninth Circuit case of United States v. Blackmon, 273 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir.2001). Specifically, he quotes the Ninth Circuit's statement that the: 24 generic nature [of the problems of police investigation] does not dissipate simply because the government claims a vast investigative purpose. Wiretaps themselves could little achieve the investigative goals stated in the government's application. The government may not cast its investigative net so far and so wide as to manufacture necessity in all circumstances. 25 Id. at 1211. 26 Blackmon is easily distinguishable. There, the wiretap application for one defendant, Blackmon, was duplicated—or to use the court's phrase carbon copied— from the wiretap application of another defendant. As a result, there were material omissions in the affidavits in support of the wiretap on Blackmon. Moreover, the government did not target any individualized investigation at Blackmon before applying for a wiretap. See id. at 1208. Stripped of the language duplicated from the other affidavit, the affidavit at issue in Blackmon only contained the lofty goals, leaving the court with no reason to believe the government's proffer of necessity as to Blackmon. Here, in contrast, the government conducted an extensive investigation of Martinez before applying for a Title III wiretap, and described that investigation in the affidavits. 27 More importantly, while Martinez has categorized the goals of the investigation into his dealings as impossibly broad and unrealistic, the goals contained in the Masiello affidavits are neither. In his first affidavit, Masiello identified the following investigative objectives: (1) identifying all of the individuals who were supplying Martinez with cocaine; (2) identifying the manner in which the organization transported cocaine; (3) identifying the manner in which payment was made to the sources of supply for the cocaine that was distributed by Martinez; (4) identifying all of the locations where cocaine was stored by the organization; and (5) identifying the manner in which Martinez and his associates laundered and invested their drug proceeds. These are all discrete and realistic goals for a criminal drug investigation that has legitimately cast a wide net. They are similar to goals that we have approved for wiretaps in previous cases. 28 For example, in Villarman-Oviedo, we upheld a wiretap where the goals of the investigation were to uncover[] the full scope of the potential crimes under investigation, as well as the identities of those responsible and to obtain[] evidence of the totality of offenses in which the targets of the investigation were involved. 325 F.3d at 10. In United States v. Santana, 342 F.3d 60 (1st Cir.2003), we upheld a wiretap that investigators asserted was necessary to uncover the full scope of the conspiracy, including conclusive proof of identity[,] and information as to how the drug sales were made. Id. at 66; see also United States v. David, 940 F.2d 722 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Ashley, 876 F.2d 1069 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Abou-Saada, 785 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1986). As in those cases, the major goals of the investigation at issue here were both legitimate and attainable. The district court properly denied Defendant's motions to suppress.