Opinion ID: 2803541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dale Colbert

Text: Dale Colbert contends that the affidavits in support of Application #1 and Application #2 failed to satisfy Title III’s necessity requirement because they did not demonstrate that investigators exhausted traditional investigative techniques before seeking a wiretap. However, he lacks standing to challenge these applications. “Any aggrieved person” may move to suppress the contents of a wire or oral communication intercepted under Title III. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(a). This “aggrieved person” is “a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(11). As the district court noted, the wiretaps sought under Application #1 and Application #2 did not intercept Colbert’s conversations or target any telephones used by Colbert. Indeed, neither affidavit in support of the applications even mentioned Colbert as a target of the investigation. See United States v. Cooper, 868 F.2d 1505, 1510 (6th Cir. 1989) (holding that when another individual’s telephone was wiretapped, a defendant had standing to challenge only the interception of conversations in which he participated). Moreover, because Colbert did not address Application #2 in his original suppression motion, he waives this challenge on appeal. “Even when a party has brought a pretrial suppression motion, . . . any new suppression arguments raised for the first time on appeal that were not contained in the original suppression motion will be deemed waived under [Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 12(e).” United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724, 738 (6th Cir. 2006). -12- Nos. 13-3803/3814/3883/4019/4081/4086, United States v. Darin Wright, et al. Colbert similarly challenges the supporting affidavit for Application #5 and Application #6 on the basis of necessity, but these claims fall short. First, Colbert did not challenge Application #6 in his suppression motion below, so his argument on appeal is waived. Second, Colbert’s challenge to Application #5 repeats his brother Darryl Colbert’s criticisms of that application, and it fails for the same reasons.
Colbert argues that the affidavit in support of Application #5 failed to establish probable cause that he trafficked drugs. Citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 279 (1983), he claims that the affidavit was deficient because investigators relied on six unreliable and uninformed confidential sources, thus invalidating probable cause. As the district court explained, however, Colbert ignores the fact that these confidential sources provided reliable information. In his supporting affidavit for Application #5, SA Porrini maintained that he had probable cause to believe Colbert was trafficking drugs based on information provided by CS-6, an informant. CS-6 told investigators that the California-based Colbert DTO had been importing large amounts of cocaine to the Canton/Akron area since 2010, and he claimed to have witnessed nine or ten loads of cocaine arrive in Canton area warehouses. CS-6 further averred that the cocaine was being hidden in engine blocks and that one of the Colbert brothers would travel to Ohio in advance of a shipment in order to distribute the cocaine. In his affidavit, SA Porrini explained that investigators corroborated the information provided by CS-6. For instance, investigators checked the bills of lading associated with the warehouse deliveries and confirmed that they were coming from California, where the Colberts lived. Investigators conducted more surveillance and learned that an engine block arrived at an -13- Nos. 13-3803/3814/3883/4019/4081/4086, United States v. Darin Wright, et al. Akron business named Massey & Sons Autobody on February 17, 2012, and another shipment arrived at Massey & Sons on February 21, 2012. On both those occasions, investigators observed Dale Colbert at that business, which corroborated CS-6’s claim that a Colbert brother always traveled to Ohio in order to distribute the cocaine. Similarly, SA Porrini stated that on January 27, 2012, CS-6 informed investigators that one of the Colbert brothers contacted him to advise CS-6 that the other Colbert brother would be visiting the Akron area in the next few days. Investigators corroborated this information through intercepted conversations, learning that Darryl Colbert was arranging travel to Ohio. Finally, SA Porrini stated that intercepted communications suggested the Colbert brothers completed a cocaine shipment from California to Akron, which arrived on February 21, 2012, and were arranging for a similar shipment of cocaine to be sent to the Akron area in early March. Investigators also intercepted Dale and Darryl Colbert discussing how much their unknown supplier was charging for each kilogram of cocaine. On March 12, 2012, SA Porrini obtained a search warrant for the contents of a shipment to Massey & Sons, which revealed 17 kilograms of cocaine hidden in an engine block. This again confirmed CS-6’s information. As such, SA Porrini’s affidavit contained well-corroborated information provided by CS- 6. Based on the totality of the circumstances, SA Porrini had probable cause to believe that Colbert was involved in drug trafficking. See United States v. Dyer, 580 F.3d 386, 392 (6th Cir. 2009) (finding the existence of probable cause when an informant’s information was derived from personal observation of illegal activity, and independent law enforcement investigation corroborated the informant’s information). -14- Nos. 13-3803/3814/3883/4019/4081/4086, United States v. Darin Wright, et al.
Colbert avers that under Title III the United States “failed to follow proper minimization,” with law enforcement officers recording conversations that involved “personal, non-criminal matters.” But he fails to prove a violation of the minimization requirement. As with his original suppression motion, Colbert’s appellate brief articulates the legal requirement for minimization, but it never specifically identifies the agents who failed to minimize interceptions or the intercepted conversations that contained personal, non-criminal matters. The brief only vaguely refers to “a number of conversations” that “includ[ed] personal, non-criminal matters.” Because Colbert provides no evidence, he cannot satisfy his burden of proof regarding minimization. See United States v. Giacolone, 853 F.2d 470, 482 (6th Cir. 1988) (holding that defendants who “did not give any specific examples of conversations which should not have been monitored” failed to satisfy their initial burden when challenging minimization procedures and impermissibly their burden to the government); United States v. Smith, 783 F.2d 648, 650 (6th Cir. 1986) (“The burden of production and persuasion rests on the person seeking to suppress evidence.”). The district court thus appropriately rejected Colbert’s argument.