United States v. Ai Le

Good Law
255 F. Supp. 2d 1132·2003 WL 378982
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 2003CR.S-99-0433 WBSCalifornia4,068 words

Opinion

Opinion

Shubb, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE DEFENDANT HOANG Ad LE’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FROM WIRETAPS

Defendant Hoang Ai Le is one of seven defendants named in this indictment. The wiretap investigation in this case began on August 5, 1995 and continued until April 8, 1996. During that period, wiretaps were authorized pursuant to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 , et seq, by judges in the Northern District of California, the Central District of California, and the Eastern District of New York, and by the undersigned judge in the Eastern District of California. Defendant requests a Franks hearing on his claims that the wiretap affidavits contained false and misleading statements. Defendant also moves to suppress evidence from intercepted wiretap communications on the grounds that: (1) the investigative goals of the wiretaps authorized in this case were so broad as to render 18 U.S.C. § 2518 a nullity; (2) the wiretaps were being used for their evidentiary advantages; and (3) requisite necessity for the wiretap extensions was lacking.

1. Applicable Law

“Title III of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.