Opinion ID: 162322
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Necessity of the Wiretap

Text: All four defendants challenge the admission of the wiretap evidence, arguing that the warrant was invalid because the government failed to demonstrate a necessity to conduct electronic surveillance. This circuit has conflicting authority as to whether a trial judge’s determination on the necessity of a wiretap is reviewed de novo or for an abuse of discretion. Compare United States v. Castillo-Garcia, 117 F.3d 1179, 1186 (10th Cir. 1997) (“The question of whether the government demonstrated sufficient “necessity” . . . to support the issuance of a wiretapping order is a question of law which we review de novo.”), with United States v. Armendariz, 922 F.2d 602, 608 (10th Cir. 1990) (“[W]e review the conclusion that the wiretap[ ] [was] necessary in each situation for an abuse of discretion.”). Because the government demonstrated a sufficient showing of necessity to meet either standard, we need not reconcile this conflict in this case. Defendants bear the burden of proving that a wiretap is invalid once it has been authorized. United States v. Quintana, 70 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 1995). Before a court may validly issue a wiretap warrant, the government must -5- demonstrate its necessity by showing that traditional investigative techniques have been tried unsuccessfully, are unlikely to be successful, or are too dangerous to attempt. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2518(1)(c), 2518(3)(c). Traditional techniques include standard visual and aural surveillance, questioning and interrogation of witnesses or participants (including the use of grand juries and the grant of immunity if necessary), use of search warrants, and infiltration of groups by undercover agents or informants. If any of these techniques has not been tried, the government must explain why with particularity. Castillo-Garcia, 117 F.3d at 1187. If other techniques such as pen registers or trap and trace devices have not been tried, a similar explanation must be offered. Id. We evaluate necessity on a case-by-case basis, considering “all the facts and circumstances in order to determine whether the government’s showing of necessity is sufficient to justify a wiretap.” Id. at 1187. We read the necessity requirement “in a common sense fashion . . . , and it is not necessary that every other possible means of investigation be exhausted.” United States v. Nunez, 877 F.2d 1470, 1472 (10th Cir. 1989). A successful challenge to the necessity of a wiretap results in the suppression of evidence seized pursuant to that wiretap. United States v. Green, 175 F.3d 822, 828 (10th Cir. 1999). It is undisputed that a variety of investigative techniques were used, including informants, undercover officers, surveillance, pen registers, and trace -6- devices. Bench successfully penetrated the clubhouse, and pen registers sometimes revealed whom Mirelez was calling to obtain the drugs. Officers used this information to conduct surveillance on the houses he contacted. Bench also spoke with a number of club members regarding drug transactions. While these traditional techniques produced results, the affidavits submitted demonstrated that they were insufficient results. The affidavits reveal that the identity of several people connected to the clubhouse still remained hidden after these conversations. While Bench was reasonably successful in his undercover role, a large amount of information as to the identities of buyers and suppliers remained unknown. Club members made clear that much of this information was secret. While Bench might have been able to become a member of the group, the affidavits indicate that this might have required him to commit illegal acts as part of his membership. Physical surveillance brought about the same mixed results. Surveillance is not successful simply because it is not detected. Although surveillance was used successfully to identify some persons responsible for delivering drugs, most business was conducted within the clubhouse, where surveillance was, at best, difficult. Moreover, surveillance does not easily distinguish between innocent encounters and those that involve a drug transaction, absent clues about the content of conversations leading up to the encounters. Finally, conducting -7- surveillance outside of the clubhouse was difficult without electronic surveillance that revealed the location of the transaction and the type of meeting that would take place. While this information could sometimes be inferred from a pen register, at other times it could not. The government also used three confidential sources. These sources provided useful information, such as evidence that Catherine Masterson supplied drugs to Mirelez. However, none of the sources had current contact or involvement with the club. Their information was of a background nature only. Nothing indicates that confidential sources existed who had not been approached. The record indicates that confidential sources were of limited use in these investigations. The other techniques used were also insufficient to expose the conspiracy thoroughly. As noted above, pen registers and call tracing were sometimes useful, but were unsuccessful in thoroughly exploring the conspiracy. Executing search warrants would likely have been counterproductive because drugs were rarely kept at the clubhouse. The affidavit indicates that a grand jury investigation would have been futile, since many members of the club would have refused to testify, even under a grant of immunity. The wiretapping statute “does not mandate the indiscriminate pursuit to the bitter end of every non-electronic device as to every telephone and principal in -8- question to a point where the investigation becomes redundant or impractical or the subjects may be alerted and the entire investigation aborted by unreasonable insistence upon forlorn hope.” United States v. Bennett, 219 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Baker, 589 F.2d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir. 1979)). Rather, it simply requires that the government unsuccessfully attempt traditional means of investigation before resorting to wiretapping. Here, the government used traditional means, and was left with many important questions unanswered. The government thus made a sufficient showing of necessity. Plaintiffs have not overcome the presumed validity of the wiretap authorization. We therefore hold that the district court correctly found that a wiretap authorization was necessary under these circumstances.