Opinion ID: 470866
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Validity of Wiretap

Text: 19 The government received authorization from a district judge to intercept wire communications from alleged coconspirator Tanceusz's phone and oral communications from his home. Subsequently, the government obtained a thirty-day extension of the original authorization. During the extension period, three conversations involving defendant Stanley were intercepted. Prior to trial, Stanley moved to suppress the intercepted conversations and any fruits thereof. 2 The district court denied that motion. 20 First, Stanley attacked the validity of the initial wiretap order. Second, Stanley contends that the government's application for an extension of the wiretap on Gregory Tanceusz's telephone was flawed in three respects: (1) the application failed to establish that other investigative techniques would be inadequate to obtain the desired evidence; (2) the extension application did not adequately apprise the district court of earlier wiretap applications, so that the district court could determine the need for further wiretapping; and (3) the extension application failed to include a detailed statement of the results obtained so far in the course of the electronic surveillance. The district court addressed and specifically rejected each of these claims prior to trial. 21 Having reviewed the record, we also reject appellant's contentions and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the initial wiretap order or in granting an extension. See, e.g., United States v. Diggs, Nos. 83-1441/1537/1594/1617/1618, slip op. at 3 (6th Cir. April 19, 1985);United States v. Landmesser, 553 F.2d 17 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 855 (1977). 22 We find appellant's contention about the wiretapping meritless because the record indicates that the government set forth in its supporting affidavit an extensive list of the circumstances necessitating a wiretap. There was no abuse of discretion shown. 23 Defendant further contends that even if the initial application were appropriate, the extension application was not. However, since the factual justification for the order had not changed at the time extension was sought, 'it was unnecessary to vary the specific facts, admittedly accurate, in the renewal application.' United States v. Terry, 702 F.2d 299, 310 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Williams v. United States, 461 U.S. 931 (1983). Appellant demonstrated no violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1)(c). His attacks on the validity and propriety of the wiretap orders do not warrant reversal.