United States v. Robert Steven Lujan
Opinion
Opinion
Robert Steven Lujan (Lujan) appeals his conviction on three drug trafficking counts, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 846 (1988). We affirm.
I. Motion to Suppress Wiretap Evidence: Probable Cause
Lujan challenges the district court’s denial of the motions to suppress wiretap evidence, contending there was no probable cause to issue a wiretap extension order, as required under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2518 (3)(a), (b), (d) & 2518(5).
Lujan argues that the affidavit for the first extension order of October 29, 1987 indicated the lack of probable cause because it noted that the Government learned on September 25, 1987 Valdez was no long er living at the targeted address. Because Valdez purportedly left Rose Arehart’s residence, Lujan argues there was no probable cause for the first extension order.
Under the totality of the circumstances, we find that there was sufficient probable cause for the first extension wiretap order. Lujan has cited no authority that the targeted individual must reside at the location of the targeted facility. The statute merely requires probable cause that the targeted facilities “are being used, or are about to be used” in connection with the offense. The…