United States v. Anthony Ellis, 693 F. App'x 137

FBI investigated the East Hills Bloods in Pittsburgh after violent incidents and a murder tied to heroin theft; Special Agent David N. Hedges submitted eight Title III applications during the probe.
Earlier intercepts of other targets (not Ellis) captured communications with Target Telephone #18, revealing Ellis’s role arranging heroin sales and conducting counter-surveillance.
On March 23, 2012 the government applied to intercept Target Telephone #18; Hedges’ 93‑page affidavit included a 22‑page necessity section asserting other methods were inadequate or dangerous.
The district court authorized interception of Target Telephone #18; evidence from that intercepts contributed to Ellis’s indictment on drug and firearm conspiracy charges.
Ellis moved to suppress, arguing the application failed the § 2518(1)(c) and (3)(c) necessity requirement—specifically that it did not state no traditional methods had been tried as to him—and preserved that issue by pleading guilty conditionally.
The district court denied suppression; the Third Circuit reviewed whether the application contained a sufficient statement of necessity and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the § 2518(1)(c)/(3)(c) "necessity" statement was adequate for authorizing interception of Target Telephone #18	Ellis: affidavit was conclusory and failed to state that traditional techniques were tried or would likely fail specifically as to him	Gov: affidavit supplied a factual predicate—intercepted calls, pen‑registers, surveillance failures, informant limitations, and Hedges’s experience—showing other techniques were unlikely to reveal the full scope of the conspiracy	The court held the application satisfied § 2518(1)(c); the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a sufficient factual predicate and denial of suppression was affirmed

United States v. Bailey, 840 F.3d 99 (3d Cir.) (wiretap necessity may be shown by need to reveal full scope of a conspiracy)
United States v. Williams, 124 F.3d 411 (3d Cir.) (courts may rely on specialized agents’ experience when assessing necessity)
United States v. Armocida, 515 F.2d 29 (3d Cir.) (necessity requires factual predicate showing other methods likely to fail)
United States v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309 (3d Cir.) (application must describe circumstances establishing likely inadequacy of other techniques)
Kahn v. United States, 415 U.S. 143 (Supreme Court) (§ 2518(3)(c) ensures wiretaps are not used where traditional techniques suffice)
United States v. Phillips, 959 F.2d 1187 (3d Cir.) (standard of review for necessity determinations)
United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900 (9th Cir.) (upholding necessity where broader investigative goals would be frustrated by arresting a single target)
United States v. Killingsworth, 117 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir.) (pen register and trap‑and‑trace may be considered among investigative techniques)