|
|
|
| Wire Taps |
|
United States v. Cunningham,
No. 05-1515 (7th Cir., August 29, 2006): Wire Taps; Cunningham and others were convicted at jury trial of conspiracy to commit various drug offenses involving the distribution of heroin in Indiana. Part of the Government's evidence consisted of Title III wiretaps. As part of the evidentiary presentation, the Government presented the testimony of a DEA Agent who outlined the process of how such wiretaps are sought and approved up the chain of command. The panel held that such evidence resulted in improper bolstering of the Government's case and was otherwise irrelevant(!) Very sharp case to use in these situations.
|
|
|
United States v. Ramirez,
No. 05-4099 (10th Cir., March 16, 2007) (Published): Wiretaps: Multiple defendant case raising multiple issues in a drug conspiracy case. AFFIRMED in this very lengthy opinion over claims of: 1) illegal wiretaps (with decent discussion of probable cause, necessity, and minimization requirements); 2) illegal traffic stops; 3) miscellaneous evidentiary rulings; 4) sufficiency of the evidence; 5) IAC; and 6) sentencing issues.
|
|
|
Evans v. State,
2007 OK CR 13 (April 12, 2007): Wiretaps: Evans was convicted in Lincoln County before the Hon. Paul M. Vassar of Conspiracy to Traffic in Methamphetamine, Unlawful Use of Communication Facility, Conspiracy to Traffic in Marijuana, and Trafficking in Methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 50 year terms and life on the principal charges. AFFIRMED over several claims in this summary opinion, the most notable of which involve the use of state wiretaps. The Court held: 1) wiretaps are not required to be initiated by a written request by the District Attorney but rather the Attorney General; 2) that the application in this case was valid despite the misdescription of the physical address of the Appellant since the order was directed at a correctly identified mobile communications device rather than a physical address; and 3) the State is not required to exhaust every other conceivable investigative tool before seeking a wiretap order.
|
|
|
State v. Serrato,
2007 OK CR 44 (December 18, 2007): Wiretaps: This case presents, in the words of the Court, "the novel question" of whether the judicially authorized interception of cell phone communications violates the Security of Communications Act. OBNDDC agents obtained a wiretap authorization from the Presiding Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals to intercept and eavesdrop on calls between Serrato and others suspected of participating in a drug trafficking conspiracy. The central issue in the case revolves around whether intercepting cell phone communications was authorized at the time they were performed in this case because Congress gave the states only so long (two years) to conform their statutes and Oklahoma apparently did not act in time. Based on this, Judge Twyla Gray in Oklahoma County granted Serrato's motion to suppress. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that cell phones were covered under the original language and thus any subsequent language does not matter; and also the Supremacy Clause operated to supplant state law when Congress amended Title III on this topic.
|
|
|
Carter v. State,
2008 OK CR 2 (January 17, 2008): 1. Wire Taps; 2. Experts; Drug Jargon: Taleeta Carter was convicted by jury in Lincoln County of Conspiracy to Traffick Methamphetamine and Unlawful Use of Communication Facility to Facilitate a Felony. The Court AFFIRMED over several claims of error. The primary evidence presented by the State consisted of phone calls intercepted between between Carter and the conspiracy leader and also testimony from a police officer as an "expert" in explaining the drug jargon used in the calls. Concerning the calls, trial counsel failed to object properly at trial to the phone calls and thus the "minimization" efforts of the police were reviewed for plain error (a very deferential standard of review) as was the claim that the calls contained other bad acts. Also, there was no error in allowing the "expert" testimony of the police officer concerning the drug jargon.
|
|
United States v. Zapata,
No. 06-1541 (10th Cir., September 9, 2008) (Published): 1. Wiretaps; 2. Severance: 18 members of the Zapata family and/or their close friends were involved in a cocaine trafficking conspiracy. Five of them decided to take their chances at trial and were convicted, receiving lengthy prison terms. In this opinion, the convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED over claims relating to the sufficiency of wiretaps, sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions that would have allowed the jury to convict based on conduct of co-defendants rather themselves, and denial of severance.
|
|
United States v. Verdin-Garcia
No. 06-3354 (10th Cir., February 19, 2008) (Published): Wiretaps: Verdin-Garcia and a co-defendant were convicted of leadership roles in a large marijuana and methamphetamine trafficking conspiracy in and around Kansas City and were sentenced to life sentences as well as a multitude of lesser sentences. AFFIRMED over claims relating to: 1) wiretap warrants under Title III (the Government satisfied its burden of showing "necessity" for the wiretaps); 2) the use by the Government of translations of the words spoken on the wiretaps; 3) the use of intercepted prison phone calls as voice exemplars (the Court held that the defendants were warned and thus consent was implied; 4) and the substantive and procedural reasonableness of the sentences
|
|
|
|
