Opinion ID: 788340
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Material misstatements or omissions and probable cause

Text: 103 Appellants argue that the facts omitted from the Olsen affidavits, if considered with the rest of the information provided, would not establish probable cause for the wiretaps. In order to issue a wiretap order, the district court must find probable cause to believe (1) that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit specified offenses, ... (2) that communications relevant to that offense will be intercepted through the wiretap, and (3) that the individual who is the focus of the wiretap investigation will use the tapped phone. United States v. Meling, 47 F.3d 1546, 1552 (9th Cir.1995) (internal citations omitted). We conclude that none of the alleged omissions, if they existed at all, undermine the district court's finding of probable cause. 104 Appellants first claim that the Olsen affidavit for Line 6 failed to mention that Fernandez was a federal fugitive and that the government had never attempted to arrest him. The government appears to concede that this fact was omitted from the Olsen affidavits, but argues that the fact was not material because, if anything, it made it more likely that Fernandez was engaged in criminal behavior. The district court agreed, noting that Fernandez's fugitive status would have increased the showing of probable cause, not diminished it. We agree with the district court's determination as it relates to probable cause. However, the district court's analysis does not defeat Appellants' arguments that the omission was material to the necessity requirement. We address those arguments in the next section. 105 Appellants' second claim is that the Olsen affidavits failed to mention that the person Confidential Witness # 2 (CW # 2) claimed was Fernandez's associate was, in fact, CW # 2's associate. At the district court, Appellants claimed that the associate was an individual named Debra Wood Farris or Deb, and provided evidence that this person was in fact CW# 2's—rather than Fernandez's—associate. The government, however, submitted the affidavit of FBI Special Agent Franklin Davis, who stated that the individual referred to in the affidavit was co-defendant Robert Cervantes, who was in fact Fernandez's associate. Appellants provided no evidence to rebut this assertion, and the district court agreed with the government that the reference was to Cervantes. The Olsen affidavits were therefore neither false nor misleading on this point. Appellants have pointed to nothing in the record that would lead us to conclude that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous. 106 Finally, Appellants argue that the Olsen affidavits failed to mention that CW # 2 personally facilitated the purchase of drugs to be taken into the Los Angeles County Jail. 2002 WL 32302660 at . As the district court pointed out, however, the Olsen affidavits made specific reference to the fact that CW# 2 had facilitated such a drug deal. The record therefore fully supports the district court's finding that the Olsen affidavits contained no material misrepresentations or omissions with respect to CW# 2's drug use and drug dealing. 107 In sum, none of the omissions alleged by the appellants undermines the district court's finding that probable cause existed to approve the wiretaps.