Opinion ID: 2979938
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sherrills

Text: In his opening and reply briefs, Sherrills specifically addresses only the district court’s denial of his suppression motion. However, in a footnote, Sherrills incorporates by reference all arguments made by Pittman in her brief. Sherrills did not move for a mistrial and any arguments made by Pittman regarding her sentence are specific to her. Accordingly, only the arguments discussed in sections B.2 and B.4 below are properly extended to Sherrills.
Sherrills appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the wiretap orders issued on March 5, 2007, and April 10, 2007. The initial application for wiretap interception was accompanied by a 63-page affidavit executed by Agent Riolo. Sherrills challenges this affidavit as deficient as it lacks a showing of necessity with respect to intercepting communications on Target Phone #1, the one used by Sherrills. Sherrills contends the government did not demonstrate that normal investigative procedures were unavailable, as required under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c) and (3)(c), specifically with respect to him. -7- Nos. 08-4088, 08-4095 United States v. Sherrills, et al. We review the district court’s decision on a motion to suppress using “a mixed standard of review: we review findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo.” United States v. Davis, 514 F.3d 596, 607 (6th Cir. 2008). Where, as here, the motion to suppress is denied, all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Blair, 524 F.3d 740, 748 (6th Cir. 2008). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c), a wiretap application 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.” This requirement, often referred to as the “necessity requirement,” protects against the impermissible use of a wiretap as the initial step of an investigation and ensures such interceptions are “not resorted to in situations where traditional investigative techniques would suffice to expose the crime.” United States v. Rice, 478 F.3d 704, 710 (6th Cir. 2007)(citations omitted). The government’s burden to establish necessity does not require showing “every other imaginable method of investigation has been unsuccessfully attempted, but [is] simply to inform the issuing court of the difficulties involved in the use of conventional techniques.” United States v. Landmesser, 553 F.2d 17, 20 (6th Cir. 1977). In the specific section of the affidavit labeled “Need for Interception” various investigative techniques are described as futile or dangerous specifically with respect to Derrick Wade. However, there is no reason to exclude their applicability to Sherrills or others in the conspiracy. Viewing the affidavit as a whole, the phone identified as Target Phone #1 is associated with a large volume of -8- Nos. 08-4088, 08-4095 United States v. Sherrills, et al. telephone calls to the other interceptee target, Target Phone #2. The analysis of calls associated with Target Phone #1 establishes the high volume of calls made to other numbers associated with individuals known or suspected of drug trafficking. Further, the calls between these phones or between Target Phone #2 and another phone associated with Sherrills and/or Pittman occur on dates of travel by confirmed and suspected drug couriers. The affidavit details the need for interception of Target Phone #1, as it was a contact number for travel arrangements and would further illuminate Sherrills’s involvement in the drug trafficking organization. Far from being an initial step, the affidavit describes a seven-month long investigation into the ongoing extensive network of the drug trafficking organization associated with Wade. Agent Riolo describes the limitations on obtaining additional evidence through confidential sources, the lack of cooperation by individuals apprehended at the Phoenix Airport, the problems with trash pulls, the unsuccessful surveillance efforts, referring to “Derrick Wade and his close associates,” and later referencing Sherrills as a target of surveillance. Agent Riolo specifically notes the problems with surveillance in hotels where many of these transactions occurred. The need for interception of Target Phone #1 is well-established, as the affidavit amply addresses the difficulties of using conventional techniques. The affidavit includes specific facts as to each type of investigative method used and for those not pursued, such as search warrants, Agent Riolo provides case-specific reasons why they would be inadequate. For example, “Source 2 and Source 3 advised that DERRICK WADE keeps cocaine at his mother’s residence only for a short period of time when necessary.” This level of -9- Nos. 08-4088, 08-4095 United States v. Sherrills, et al. specificity is markedly distinct from the “generalized and uncorroborated information” or boilerplate “statements in the conclusory [sic] language of the statute” deemed insufficient in the cases cited by Sherrills. Cf. Rice, 478 F.3d at 711; United States v. Castillo-Garcia, 117 F.3d 1179, 1188 (10th Cir. 1997). Viewing the affidavit in its entirety, Sherrills had an identifiable relationship with Target Phone #1. In light of the large-scale organization, the locations of transactions, and the unsuccessful interviews of other suspects, the district court was provided a full and complete statement regarding other investigative procedures. The government satisfied its burden of establishing necessity for interception and the district court properly authorized interception of Target Phone #1. The continued authorization of this wiretap was not “tainted” and was also proper. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Sherrills’s motion to suppress.