State v. Hebeishy, 522 P.3d 943

The Titanic Crip Society (TCS) is a small Weber County gang; investigators identified brothers Tamer and Sadat Hebeishy as "shot callers" who direct subordinate members.
An Ogden PD officer (assigned to an FBI task force) sought wiretap warrants for Tamer’s and Sadat’s mobile phones to (1) identify members/leadership, (2) disrupt/dismantle TCS, and (3) obtain gang-specific intelligence; Sadat’s affidavit added identifying Sadat’s specific role.
The affidavits recited nearly 20 years of investigative history and explained that traditional techniques (surveillance, knock-and-talks, undercover operations, confidential informants, trash covers, controlled buys, searches, pen registers) had been used with limited success and were unlikely to reveal or prosecute the gang leaders.
District court authorized both wiretaps after finding probable cause and that normal investigative procedures had been tried and failed or were unlikely to succeed or too dangerous.
Sadat moved to suppress the wiretap-derived evidence, arguing the affidavits were conclusory and failed the Act’s necessity requirement; the district court denied suppression. Sadat entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the officer’s affidavits satisfied the necessity requirement of Utah’s Interception of Communications Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the wiretap applications satisfied the Act's necessity requirement	Hebeishy: affidavits were conclusory; officer did not personally attempt or seriously consider traditional techniques; other methods could work	State: affidavits detailed goals, prior techniques tried, and explained why those techniques were unlikely to succeed or were too dangerous	Necessity satisfied; wiretap evidence admissible
Appropriate standard of review for necessity determinations	Hebeishy: mixed question—review factual findings for clear error but review necessity de novo	State: deferential abuse-of-discretion standard (majority of federal circuits)	Court did not resolve the dispute; affirmed that even under de novo review there was no error

State v. Martinez, 896 P.2d 38 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (discussing alternative means language)
United States v. Quintana, 70 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 1995) (noting Utah necessity provision is substantially identical to federal statute)
United States v. Ramirez-Encarnacion, 291 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2002) (federal circuits' approach to reviewing wiretap necessity)
United States v. Bailey, 840 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2016) (wiretaps appropriate to uncover conspiracy scope and leadership)
United States v. Foy, 641 F.3d 455 (10th Cir. 2011) (wiretap justified to identify conspiracy size and scope)
United States v. Villarman-Oviedo, 325 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) (wiretap approved to uncover full scope of illegal enterprise)
United States v. Encarnacion, 26 F.4th 490 (1st Cir. 2022) (government plausibly explained why traditional means were insufficient)
State v. Bradshaw, 152 P.3d 288 (Utah 2006) (federal law can be instructive when state statute modeled on federal counterpart)