United States v. Richard Ortiz

MEMORANDUM

Richard Anthony Ortiz challenges the district court’s admission of wiretap calls at trial, arguing, that the government did not meet the “necessity” element required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518 for Target Telephone No. 8 (“TT8”). Ortiz also challenges the admission of Marisela Fuentes’s statements to Ortiz during two prison calls, alleging there was insufficient independent evidence that Fuentes was an unindicted member of the conspiracy.

The government’s affidavit provided a “full and complete statement,” and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the wiretap application met the statutory requirement of necessity. 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (l)(c), (3)(c); see also United States v. Canales Gomez, 358 F.3d 1221, 1224 (9th Cir.2004). Section 2518(l)(c) requires that any application for a judicial order authorizing a wiretap include “a full and complete statement” indicating that “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.” See also 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (3)(c).

Here, Special Agent Nathan Clammer’s 73-page affidavit details an extensive use of traditional…