United States v. Julian Sandoval

The Government appeals from an order of the district court granting appellees’ motions to suppress evidence obtained from wiretaps. We reverse.

18 U.S.C. § 2518 (l)(c) requires a wiretap application to include:

18 U.S.C. § 2518 (3)(c) provides that a judge may issue an order authorizing a wiretap if he determines that:

Language identical to these provisions is contained in Arizona Revised Statutes, §§ 13 — 1057(B)(3) and 13-1057(C)(3).

FACTS

On February 24, 1975, the Pima County Attorney submitted an application (CA-75-1) for wiretap to the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Pima. This application was supported by a lengthy and detailed affidavit of Tucson Police Officer Eugene L. Anaya. This affidavit disclosed the efforts of the Police Department, through the use of five confidential informants, to infiltrate Sandoval’s organization. These informants were able, on two occasions, to purchase heroin directly from Sandoval. The informants also provided information as to Sandoval’s use of numerous individuals who were involved in the distribution scheme. Confidential informant number 4 provided a partial list of the names and addresses of…