Ruiz-Maldonado

MEMORANDUM **

Manuel Ruiz-Maldonado appeals his jury conviction for charges involving a large cocaine and methamphetamine conspiracy. He argues that the district court erred in failing to suppress evidence obtained through the use of a telephone wiretap because the wiretap application failed to meet the statutory requirement of “necessity.” 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

“Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2518 , prohibits electronic surveillance by the federal government except under specific circumstances.” United States v. Canales Gomez, 358 F.3d 1221, 1224 (9th Cir.2004). The Government’s application must include “a full and complete statement as to whether or not 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.” 2 18 U.S.C. §§ 2518 (l)(c). We have emphasized “the statutory presumption against this intrusive method” and have interpreted these statutory prerequisites as a “necessity” requirement. United States v. Gonzalez, Inc., 412 F.3d 1102, 1112 (9th Cir.2005). Nevertheless, we evaluate the…