Sutton

MEMORANDUM **

Bruce Dwight Sutton appeals his jury conviction for charges involving a cocaine distribution conspiracy. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence derived from a wiretap because the wiretap application failed to meet the statutory requirement of necessity. We affirm.

Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 218 , as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522 , imposes strict controls on the use of wiretaps. See United States v. Staffeldt, 451 F.3d 578, 579-80 (9th Cir.2006) (discussing statutory scheme). Pursuant to Section 2518, “[i]n order to obtain a wiretap, the government must demonstrate, inter alia, that normal investigative techniques have been tried and failed or reasonably appear unlikely to succeed or to be too dangerous, and must present a full and complete statement establishing that normal investigative means will not suffice.” United States v. Decoud, 456 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir.2006).

The wiretap affidavit fulfills the terms of Section 2518(l)(c) since it adequately “detailed how normal investigative procedures had been tried and failed, and why those procedures were reasonably un…