Ward

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant John Ward appeals his conviction of drug trafficking and money laundering offenses. He claims that the District Court committed error by (1) not suppressing the evidence derived from the wiretap of a cellular phone registered to Ward because the government had failed to show the wiretap was necessary, (2) denying Ward’s request for a Franks hearing related to the affidavit supporting the request for the same wiretap, and (3) refusing to dismiss the indictment on the ground that one of the statutes under which Ward was charged, 21 U.S.C. § 841 , is facially unconstitutional. We disagree.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we refer to them only as necessary.

*291 I. Necessity

Ward argues that the wiretap affidavit failed to satisfy the “necessity” requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 2518 because it did not show that the government had sufficiently exhausted the available non-intrusive investigative techniques.

A district court should not grant a wiretap application unless officers have first unsuccessfully attempted traditional investigative methods that “easily suggest themselves and are potentially productive and not unduly dangerous.” United…