Opinion ID: 2982513
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Title III’s necessity requirement

Text: Congress granted statutory authority for law enforcement interception of private telephone conversations when it passed Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–20. The statute permits a federal judge to issue a wiretap order if the government establishes, in addition to specified probable cause requirements, that “normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous,” and that the wiretap application includes “a full and complete statement” in that regard. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(c), (1)(c); United States v. Rice, 478 F.3d 704, 709–10 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Ogburn, 288 F. App’x 226, 236 (6th Cir. 2008). This provision of Title III, which is known as the “necessity” or “needs” requirement, was added to “ensure that a wiretap ‘is not resorted to in situations where traditional investigative techniques would suffice to expose the crime.’” United States v. Alfano, 838 F.2d 158, 163 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143, 153 n.12 (1974)). Although a wiretap cannot be used as a routine initial step in criminal investigations, United States v. Landmesser, 553 F.2d 17, 20 (6th Cir. 1977), a wiretap does not have to be the last resort, id., and “the government is not required to prove that every other conceivable method [of -6- Nos. 13-1164/1173/1182/1215/1216 United States v. Babubhai Patel, et al. investigation] has been tried and failed or that all avenues of investigation have been exhausted,” Alfano, 838 F.2d at 163. “All that is required is that the investigators give serious consideration to the non-wiretap techniques prior to applying for wiretap authority and that the court be informed of the reasons for the investigators’ belief that such non-wiretap techniques have been or will likely be inadequate.” United States v. Lambert, 771 F.2d 83, 91 (6th Cir. 1985). Congress intended for courts to examine the sufficiency of the government’s wiretap applications through the lenses of practicality and common sense, Landmesser, 553 F.2d at 20, and consequently, we give great deference to the district court’s decision to grant a wiretap application, Giacalone, 853 F.2d at 479. Having carefully reviewed each wiretap application, and applying great deference as the law requires, the district court did not err in determining that the government sufficiently established necessity to justify wiretap interception of Patel’s cell phones. The initial wiretap application and each of the six extension applications were supported by agent affidavits describing numerous law enforcement investigative techniques that were considered or used to infiltrate Patel’s organization. These affidavits explained at length both the progress achieved and the obstacles encountered in using confidential informants, undercover agents, audio and video recordings, surveillance, pole cameras, consensual telephone calls, pen registers, toll records, trash pulls, search warrants, and interviews. The affidavits explained in depth why ordinary methods of investigation failed to achieve all of law enforcement’s objectives, why other methods were contemplated but determined to be unlikely to succeed if attempted, and why certain methods would be likely to alert the co-conspirators to the ongoing investigation. Wiretap interception of communications was necessary to penetrate the conspiracies in order to learn the following: the extent of Patel’s organization; the names and -7- Nos. 13-1164/1173/1182/1215/1216 United States v. Babubhai Patel, et al. roles of recruiters, pharmacists, doctors, and other medical professionals and companies involved in the scheme; Patel’s money laundering methods; and Patel’s methods for concealing the activities of his organization. Each wiretap application supplied more than sufficient factual information to permit the district court to decide whether a Title III wiretap was necessary to the ongoing investigation. We have no concern that the wiretap was used as a routine first step in a criminal investigation that could have utilized only traditional investigative techniques to expose the crime. See Kahn, 415 U.S. at 153 n.12; Alfano, 838 F.2d at 163; Landmesser, 553 F.2d at 20. In addition, the continuing need for wiretap interception was thoroughly established in the extension applications. See United States v. Corrado, 227 F.3d 528, 539 (6th Cir. 2000). Because the district court’s decisions to approve the wiretap applications were amply supported by the showing of necessity and those decisions are entitled to deference, we affirm on this issue. See Giacalone, 853 F.2d at 479; Alfano, 838 F.2d at 163; Lambert, 771 F.2d at 91.