People v. Rabb, 16 N.Y.3d 145

LRU investigated Akbar’s Community Services, a minority labor coalition used to coerce hiring and collect ‘security’ payments; undercover and extensive interviews revealed links between Akbar and P&D Construction Workers Coalition.
An Akbar member’s contractor identified a contact card for someone named Divine, registered to Carol Rabb, later tied to P&D; billing records showed numerous calls between Divine and Walker/Rasberry.
LRU used undercover work and surveillance in 2004–2005, leading to eavesdropping warrants against Walker and Rasberry (Jan 19, 2005; extended Feb 1, 2005).
In early 2005 another construction company reported a P&D agent with the Divine number; this corroborated the Akbar-P&D connection and suggested a broader coalition activity.
After additional investigations, the People obtained an eavesdropping warrant for Rabb’s cell phone on March 31, 2005, with similar stated goals to the Walker/Rasberry warrants, and later obtained a warrant for Mason on Nov. 9, 2005.
Defendants were indicted for enterprise corruption and grand larceny; they moved to suppress the March 31, 2005 Rabb warrant; suppression denied; they pled guilty and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the March 31, 2005 Rabb warrant satisfied CPL 700.15(4) and 700.20(2)(d) as to necessity.	People contends the application provided a full, fact-specific basis showing less intrusive means unlikely to succeed.	Rabb argues the application relied on generalized assertions and improper transfer of necessity from Akbar to P&D.	Yes; the order affirmed, with record support that normal means would be unlikely to succeed.
Whether the necessity showing could be transferred from the Akbar investigation to the Rabb/P&D investigation.	People relies on relatedness and prior experience to justify necessity for Rabb.	Defendants argue that necessity cannot be transferred between distinct targets without independent showing.	The majority rejects broad transfer as dispositive; but affirms based on record support for Rabb; dissent would reverse on improper transfer.

People v McGrath, 46 N.Y.2d 12 (1978) (conformity of state standards with federal eavesdropping standards)
United States v Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 (1974) (necessity and balance of intrusiveness in wiretaps; not routine initial step)
United States v Kahn, 415 U.S. 143 (1974) (federal counterpart addressing need for non-routine use of wiretaps)
United States v Concepcion, 579 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard for sufficiency of necessity showing in wiretap applications)
United States v Santora, 600 F.2d 1317 (9th Cir. 1979) (no automatic transfer of necessity from one wiretap to another within an investigation)
Gonzalez, Inc., 412 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2005) (no transfer of necessity from prior taps to new location without separate showing)
United States v DiMuro, 540 F.2d 503 (1st Cir. 1976) (necessity must be tied to target; not merely related investigations)
United States v Ashley, 876 F.2d 1069 (1st Cir. 1989) (importance of evidence on necessity showing; relevance of investigator’s experience)