State v. Hebeishy and Sadler, 522 P.3d 952

Background

Tamer Ahmed Hebeishy and Jaron Michael Sadler were identified as members of the Titanic Crip Society (TCS) gang; law enforcement obtained a court-authorized wiretap of Hebeishy’s mobile phone during the investigation.
Evidence from the wiretap and other sources led to charges against Hebeishy (including pattern of unlawful activity, aggravated assault, obstructing justice) and Sadler (including pattern of unlawful activity, attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated assault).
Defendants moved to suppress wiretap-derived evidence, arguing the wiretap application failed the Act’s necessity requirement and the supporting affidavit contained false statements/material omissions warranting a Franks hearing; the district court denied suppression and denied a Franks hearing.
Hebeishy separately moved to dismiss two predicate offenses (an aggravated assault and an assault by a prisoner) from his pattern-of-unlawful-activity charge as time-barred and as violating double jeopardy/single criminal episode protections; the district court denied dismissal.
Both defendants entered conditional guilty pleas preserving these issues on appeal; the appellate court affirmed the district court on all counts.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether wiretap application met the Act’s "necessity" requirement	Officer reasonably showed traditional techniques were inadequate; necessity satisfied	Wiretap was unnecessary because traditional investigative methods were available/effective	Court affirmed: necessity finding upheld (no reversible error)
Whether affidavit contained false statements/omissions requiring a Franks hearing	Affidavit was not false or misleading; defendants failed to show intentional/reckless misstatements or materiality	Affidavit included false statements and omitted facts (e.g., prior dismantling attempts) that undermined probable cause/necessity	Court affirmed denial of Franks hearing: defendants failed to make the substantial offer-of-proof required under Franks
Whether individual predicate offenses (with expired 4-year SOL) may be used to prove pattern of unlawful activity	Under State v. Stewart, UPUAA permits use of predicate crimes even if their individual SOLs have expired; only the pattern charge’s SOL matters	Hebeishy argued those predicate offenses were time-barred and thus could not support the pattern charge (or that the five-year lookback should extend SOL)	Court followed Stewart: inclusion of time-barred predicate offenses is permitted; five-year lookback does not operate as a separate SOL on each predicate
Whether inclusion of an aggravated-assault predicate (based on same conduct as a prior riot conviction) violated double jeopardy or single criminal episode protections	State: double jeopardy not violated because pattern-of-unlawful-activity adds an element; single-episode claim inadequately developed	Hebeishy: using the same conduct as a prior conviction to support the pattern charge violates double jeopardy and single criminal episode protections	Court rejected the challenge as inadequately briefed and found no basis to overturn the district court’s ruling

Key Cases Cited

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (establishes requirement for a Franks evidentiary hearing and burden to show intentional/reckless falsehoods or material omissions)
State v. Stewart, 438 P.3d 515 (Utah 2018) (holds UPUAA may rely on predicate offenses whose individual statutes of limitations have expired)
State v. Fuller, 332 P.3d 937 (Utah 2014) (discusses standard for suppression review and Franks-related burdens)
State v. Gonzalez, 494 P.3d 1066 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (applies Franks framework to alleged omissions in warrant affidavits)
United States v. Ippolito, 774 F.2d 1482 (9th Cir. 1985) (extends Franks reasoning to the necessity determination for wiretaps)
State v. Ogden, 416 P.3d 1132 (Utah 2018) (reiterates appellate burden when Franks allegations are not adequately supported)
State v. Robertson, 438 P.3d 491 (Utah 2017) (explains double jeopardy principles distinguishing offenses by required elements)