Opinion ID: 660991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Authorizing Court's Factual Determination

Text: 26 Prior to granting authorization for a wiretap, Congress has directed that a judge must determine whether normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(3)(c). In the order authorizing the wiretaps in this matter, the judge stated that 27 [i]t has been adequately established that normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, reasonably appear unlikely to succeed if continued, reasonably appear unlikely to succeed if tried, or are too dangerous to employ. 28 J.A. 154. The appellants assert that this finding is insufficient to satisfy Sec. 2518(3)(c) because it simply quotes the provision's disjunctive language, in essence making the order a multiple choice finding. They also contend that it was error for the district court to uphold this finding, because the second alternative (reasonably appear unlikely to succeed if continued) is not a finding for which the statute authorizes a wiretap. 29 We find no merit to this argument. The appellants have not provided a prior case where a court has found an order insufficient under Sec. 2518(3)(c) for making similar, conclusory findings or for including this extra continuation finding. To the contrary, several other circuits have upheld orders which included this very language. See, e.g., United States v. Cooper, 868 F.2d 1505, 1508 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1094 (1989) (order used disjunctive language and continuation finding); United States v. Martinez, 588 F.2d 1227, 1233 (9th Cir.1978) (same); United States v. Rotchford, 575 F.2d 166, 173 (8th Cir.1978) (same); see also United States v. Apodaca, 820 F.2d 348, 350 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 903 (1987) (court found affidavit containing continuation language adequate support for wiretap order). The Ninth Circuit in Martinez also stated that absent some requirement that specific findings be made by the authorizing judge, these conclusory findings that merely repeat[ ] the statutory language are adequate so long as the record demonstrates that the order was based on full consideration of the information contained in the application. 588 F.2d at 1233. 30 We agree with these prior holdings that recitation of the disjunctive statutory language in the authorizing order is adequate if the order shows that the court considered the information in the application. Here the order itself states that it fully considered the information in the application. Likewise, we agree that the inclusion of the continuation language does not cause the finding to be inadequate. Therefore, we find no error in the district court's refusal to suppress the communications on Sec. 2518(3)(c) grounds.