Opinion ID: 2800623
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Omitted Information About Semidey

Text: Burgos' first argument is that in the affidavit in support of their wiretap application, the DEA agents omitted information about Semidey that, had it been included, would have precluded a finding of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In assessing such an argument (assuming the omitted information was intentionally or recklessly withheld), we ask whether the application, had it contained the omitted information, would still have provided a sufficient basis for authorizing the wiretap.4 United States v. Young, 877 F.2d 1099, 1102-03 (1st Cir. 1989) (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72 (1978)). The government's application for authorization to conduct a thirty-day wiretap of Burgos' cell phone was supported by a thirty-seven-page affidavit filed by DEA Agent Jacobsen, with the participation of Agent Iglesias, who was the lead agent on the case. The affidavit described the investigation as being led by the DEA and involving the FBI, the Puerto Rico Police Department, and two Puerto Rico investigative units, the Hacienda and the NIE. 4 Young used several terms to describe the standard it was applying to the reformed affidavit, including adequate, sufficient, and whether the omissions were material to a finding of probable cause. 877 F.2d at 1102-04 There is nothing to suggest the court intended the terms to convey different meanings; indeed, its reliance on Franks makes clear it was applying a sufficiency standard. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72 (asking whether a reformed affidavit contained sufficient content . . . to support a finding of probable cause). -8- In addition to Burgos, one of the five targeted individuals was Corales, whom the affidavit described as a former police officer who was fired for corruption allegations in 1997, and who had multiple felony arrests and convictions between 1995 and 1998. The evidence supporting the affidavit consisted of information from three confidential sources, including Semidey (through her reports submitted prior to her disappearance). The first two sources described the activities of named individuals believed to be lower-level members of a drug trafficking conspiracy that brought cocaine into Puerto Rico from the Dominican Republic. The evidence connecting Burgos to drug trafficking came from or through Semidey. According to the affidavit, she described conversations in which Burgos said he could procure large amounts of cocaine. She also helped arrange a meeting between Burgos and undercover officers, which was recorded, and in which the officers arranged a cocaine purchase. Toll registers confirmed that Burgos was in contact with the people that Semidey said he called to discuss the planned sale to the officers. Burgos never delivered any drugs, however. The application also described Semidey's statements that Burgos suspected the undercover officers were officers and that he had confronted her with a rumor that she was cooperating. According to the affidavit, Burgos threatened to make her disappear from the earth. It also described Semidey's -9- disappearance on July 4, 2005, and agents' observations of Burgos supervising as an employee rigorously washed the interior of Burgos' car during a rainstorm on July 6. The affidavit described Semidey as a paid informant who was cooperating for personal reasons. It then described her observations of Burgos' drug activities, her role in helping to arrange a failed buy-bust, the fact that Burgos had threatened her, and her disappearance. Omitted from the affidavit were the facts that Semidey was in a relationship with Burgos, that she was married to another man who had been released from prison shortly before she agreed to inform on Burgos, and that she may have been trying to avoid prosecution on unrelated charges.5 Nothing in these omitted facts materially undercuts the affidavit's ample demonstration of probable cause. The omitted information furnishes, at best, grist for a somewhat conjectural and by no means strong argument that one might make to discredit Semidey. None of this grist is so probative as to make its omission particularly notable. See Young, 877 F.2d at 1103 (The law does not require an officer swearing out an affidavit for a warrant to include all possible impeachment material. It need only explain that the officer has found the informant to be reasonably reliable.). We note, too, that key portions of Semidey's 5 While there was trial testimony by Semidey's mother and sister that Semidey agreed to be an informant to avoid possible prosecution in another matter, the DEA agents involved denied this. -10- statements in the affidavit were corroborated within the affidavit itself. The affidavit reflects that after Semidey introduced Burgos to undercover agents, Burgos himself spoke with undercover agents on at least three occasions regarding a potential cocaine sale. Moreover, toll records corroborated Semidey's descriptions of Burgos' telephone communications about this potential sale. In sum, even had the affidavit included the omitted information, the affidavit would easily have contained a sufficient basis for concluding that a wiretap would produce evidence that Burgos was involved in a drug conspiracy or murder. Burgos' challenge to the wiretap based on this omission of information concerning Semidey therefore fails.6 Young, 877 F.2d at 1102.