Opinion ID: 783747
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wiretap Necessity

Text: 14 Washington argues that in seeking the wiretap authorization, the government failed to satisfy the necessity requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 2518 and, therefore, the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the intercepted communications. Jackson adopts the arguments raised by Washington for the purpose of this appeal. We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but review underlying factual determinations for clear error, giving `due weight' to the inferences of the district court and law enforcement officials. United States v. Replogle, 301 F.3d 937, 938 (8th Cir. 2002). The necessity finding made prior to a district court's authorization of a wiretap is a factual determination. See United States v. Thompson, 210 F.3d 855, 859 (8th Cir.2000). 15 The necessity requirement of § 2518 insures `that wiretaps are not routinely employed as the initial step in an investigation.' Id. at 858-859 (quoting United States v. Maxwell, 25 F.3d 1389, 1394 (8th Cir.1994)). To satisfy the requirement, an application requesting a wiretap order must include a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c): See also Thompson, 210 F.3d at 858. Having reviewed the affidavit supporting the application, we find that the district court's necessity finding under § 2518 was not clearly erroneous. 16 The wiretap was requested for the purpose of discovering the full scope of the conspiracy, the full extent of the criminal activities, and to identify and successfully prosecute each member of the organization. If law enforcement officers are able to establish that conventional investigatory techniques have not been successful in exposing the full extent of the conspiracy and the identity of each coconspirator, the necessity requirement is satisfied. Id. at 859 (citing Maxwell, 25 F.3d at 1394; United States v. Smith, 909 F.2d 1164, 1166 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Macklin, 902 F.2d 1320, 1327 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. O'Connell, 841 F.2d 1408, 1414-15 (8th Cir.1988)). Agent Gray's affidavit states, with detail, the conventional investigative techniques utilized by law enforcement officers over a period of several years. The methods included surveillance, confidential informants, trash collections, pen registers and toll record information, grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, and witness interviews. The affidavit indicates the difficulties law enforcement officers encountered and explained why the investigative methods which were attempted failed to discover the full scope of the conspiracy. For instance, physical surveillance was largely unsuccessful because Jackson generally appeared to be aware of the presence of the officers; trash collections had been attempted with successful results but were not likely to establish the extent of the conspiracy; and confidential informants were proving to be of limited value because they were providing historical information, were presently incarcerated, or were refusing to cooperate. 17 Traditional investigative techniques had undoubtedly provided law enforcement officials with sufficient evidence to pursue prosecution of Washington and Jackson for drug-related offenses. Trash collections had provided evidence of drug possession and distribution, and informants had made controlled purchases from Washington and provided valuable insight into the organization. Had the purpose of the wiretap been to investigate the illegal activities of only Washington or Jackson, a necessity finding would have been erroneous. However, the facts of this case do not present such a situation. The focus of this application was upon the conspiracy itself, not merely those individuals who were involved and the government adequately established their need for a wiretap. The district court's necessity finding was not clearly erroneous and the motion to suppress was properly denied.