Opinion ID: 1176321
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the district court correctly suppressed the evidence obtained from the wiretap.

Text: Since there was no warrant based on probable cause for the installation and use of the pen register in this case, the information obtained by its use should have been excluded from the determination of probable cause for the issuance of the wiretap orders. State v. Johnson, 110 Idaho 516, 526, 716 P.2d 1288, 1298 (1986). The question with which we are then presented is whether without the pen register information there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the wiretap. The state itself acknowledges: Without [the pen register], the police in this case would not have been able to develop probable cause for the wire tap which eventually produced sufficient evidence to justify a charge against Judy Thompson and her coconspirators. Appellant's Brief on Petition for Review, p. 18. Two wiretap orders were issued by the district court authorizing the wiretap of Thompson's telephone. The affidavit that was offered in support of the application for the first wiretap order stated that the data obtained from the pen register installed on Thompson's telephone line indicated that Thompson was contacting a residence in the Twin Falls area where a drug supplier lived or frequented. The affidavit also stated that the pen register data indicated that Thompson was contacting females who were making visits to the Idaho State Penitentiary, the location where the law enforcement authorities believed drugs were being delivered. In addition, the affidavit indicated that the data obtained from the pen register showed a high frequency of phone use by Thompson  1,100 calls in 43 days, excluding calls to or from Thompson's place of work. The officer making the affidavit concluded that Thompson's phone activity was comparable to the frequency of calls of other drug traffickers and that Thompson was using the telephone to distribute or sell illicit drugs. Other than this information that was the result of the use of the pen register, there was no information contained in the affidavit indicating that Thompson was using her telephone to conduct any drug-related activities. The officer who made the affidavit stated parenthetically: (Because of the large geographical distances between Judy Thompson and her probable source of illicit drugs in the Twin Falls area, the likelihood of the use of the telephone to conduct transactions increases.) The affidavit also stated: Through various other independent sources of information, we have confirmed that ... Judy Thompson is using the telephone or telephone devices to transmit types, quantities and prices and/or any other means used to distribute or sell illicit drugs. No further identification of these various other independent sources of information or their reliability was contained in the affidavit. The affidavit offered in support of the second wiretap order alleged as a basis for the extension of the wiretap for another thirty days that during the period covered by the first order calls had been intercepted indicating an on-going conspiracy between Thompson, the drug supplier in Twin Falls and others to supply Thompson with marijuana, which she would then distribute to others, including those who would smuggle the marijuana into the Idaho State Penitentiary. Thompson's motion to suppress sought suppression of the information obtained through the wiretaps resulting from both the orders. Since the second order was based on the information produced by the first order, we must determine if the first order was properly issued. If it was not, none of the information obtained by the wiretaps was admissible, since the basis for the second would be tainted by the illegality of the first. State v. Johnson, supra . On the other hand, if the first order was valid, none of the information obtained through the two orders should be suppressed. We have adopted the totality of circumstances analysis as the standard by which probable cause will be determined in Idaho. State v. Lang, 105 Idaho 683, 684, 672 P.2d 561, 562 (1983). This approach is appropriate for determining probable cause under the Idaho wiretap statute, I.C. §§ 18-6701 through 18-6708. Before a judge may enter an ex parte wiretap order under this wiretap statute, the judge must determine on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that there is probable cause: 1. for belief that an individual has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in section 18-6706, Idaho Code; (I.C. § 18-6708(3)(a)) 2. for belief that particular communications concerning the offense will be obtained through [the wiretap] interception; (I.C. § 18-6708(3)(b)) and 3. for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire or oral communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of such offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by such person. (I.C. § 18-6708(3)(d)) In Lang, supra, we held that in reviewing findings of a judge who issued a warrant, our function is limited to ensuring that the [judge] had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed and that great deference is to be paid such determinations by reviewing courts. 105 Idaho at 684, 672 P.2d at 562. Reviewing the affidavit of the officer in support of the first wiretap order we conclude that the district judge had a substantial basis for belief that Thompson had committed, or was about to commit, the crime of dealing in marijuana, one of the offenses enumerated in I.C. § 18-6706. Excluding the information obtained through the use of the pen register, we conclude that there was not a substantial basis for belief that particular communications concerning the offense would be obtained through the wiretap or that Thompson's phone was being used, or was about to be used, in connection with the commission of the offense, as required by I.C. §§ 18-6708(3)(b) and (d). The parenthetical comment of the officer that there was likelihood that Thompson and her Twin Falls source might use the telephone to conduct transactions is only speculation and does not create a substantial basis for probable cause. Also, the statement of the officer that various other independent sources of information confirmed that Thompson was using her telephone for dealing in marijuana is not a substantial basis for probable cause, since there is no indication of the veracity, reliability or source of knowledge of these other sources. As this Court pointed out in State v. Johnson, supra , even under the totality of circumstances test, the veracity, reliability and basis of knowledge of the persons supplying hearsay information `are all highly relevant in determining the value of his report' and in making the determination of probable cause, the judge's ` action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others. ' 110 Idaho at 527 n. 13, 716 P.2d at 1299 n. 13. ( Quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 229 and 238-239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2327, and 2332, 76 L.Ed. 527 (1983)). (Emphasis in original.) We concur with the analysis of the state that [w]ithout [the pen register], the police in this case would not have been able to develop probable cause for the wiretap. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals on this issue and affirm the suppression order of the district court.