Opinion ID: 490911
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequacy of Supporting Affidavits.

Text: 10 The first ground requires little comment. Defendants argue that the supporting affidavits prepared and submitted to procure the necessary court orders did not show that normal investigative techniques had been tried or were likely to fail. Such a showing is required both by federal law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1)(c), and by state law, New York State Criminal Procedure Law, Sec. 700.15(4). 11 The district court, which is entitled to deference, see United States v. Puglisi, 790 F.2d 240, 241 (2d Cir.) (per curiam ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 106, 93 L.Ed.2d 55 (1986), found that the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(1)(c) were met and refused to suppress the evidence. We see no reason to disturb this decision. A reading of the affidavit submitted by Detective Sergeant Fargione of the Albany Police Department makes clear that in fact several normal investigative techniques had been tried unsuccessfully, and that other such techniques were likely to fail. As the affidavit pointed out, surveillance of George's residence would have been impractical, since such surveillance in a residential neighborhood is likely to be conspicuous and draw attention to the assigned officers. See United States v. Turner, 528 F.2d 143, 152 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 996, 96 S.Ct. 426, 46 L.Ed.2d 371 (1975). Similarly, surveillance of his place of business, an office on the seventh floor at a state office building, would have been unsuccessful, because surveillance of the building from the outside would have given little information regarding who had gone to see George, and for what purpose, and interior surveillance of George's office would have been too conspicuous and highly likely to reveal the fact of an on-going investigation. 12 Techniques other than direct surveillance would also have been unavailing. The Fargione affidavit stated that there were no informants available to infiltrate an undercover police officer into the conspiracy for the purpose of making a controlled buy. Use of a pen register and acquisition of telephone toll records, neither of which identify the participants to a telephone conversation, would have been unavailing since they would be unlikely to uncover [George's] partners in crime. United States v. Martino, 664 F.2d 860, 868 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, Miller v. United States, 458 U.S. 1110, 102 S.Ct. 3493, 73 L.Ed.2d 1373 (1982). In fact, telephone toll records for George's home phone were pulled for December 1984, but proved useless. 13 While it is true that other techniques, used in combination, might have borne some fruit, there is no requirement that any particular investigative procedures be exhausted before a wiretap may be authorized. United States v. Lilla, 699 F.2d 99, 104 (2d Cir.1983). We have previously noted that wiretapping is particularly appropriate when the telephone is routinely relied on to conduct the criminal enterprise under investigation. United States v. Steinberg, 525 F.2d 1126, 1130 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971, 96 S.Ct. 2167, 48 L.Ed.2d 794 (1976). 14