United States v. Anthony Santiago
905 F.3d 1013
7th Cir.2018Background
- Federal agents investigated a narcotics and money-laundering organization centered on Pedro Salas; surveillance, confidential informants, and Title III wiretaps were used.
- Agents intercepted communications on Target Phones 7 and 10; investigators identified a participant nicknamed "Titi," later determined to be Anthony Santiago.
- An April 11, 2012 affidavit seeking to continue/expand the wiretap identified "Titi" but did not name Santiago; a later application did identify him by name and explained how his identity was confirmed.
- Santiago moved to suppress evidence from the April 11 authorization, arguing the affidavit violated 18 U.S.C. § 2518 by failing to identify him by name, failed to show necessity (exhaustion of other techniques), and contained deliberate or reckless misstatements warranting a Franks hearing.
- The district court denied suppression and reconsideration; Santiago was convicted at trial and appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that omission of Santiago’s legal name did not require suppression, necessity was sufficiently shown, and Santiago failed to make the preliminary showing required for a Franks hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identification under § 2518(1)(b)(iv) | Affidavit knew Santiago’s identity but named only "Titi," violating the statute | Even if omission violated identification provision, suppression is not required where statutory factors were satisfied | Omission did not require suppression; Donovan controls and statutes' core factors were present |
| Necessity (§ 2518(1)(c)) | Santiago: knowing his identity undercuts the need for the wiretap as other techniques could suffice | Government: affidavit showed traditional techniques tried or unlikely to succeed (surveillance thwarted, unknown co-conspirators, goals beyond ID) | Necessity requirement satisfied; deference to issuing judge not abused |
| Bad faith / prejudice from omission | Santiago: omission suggests deliberate concealment to obtain the warrant and prejudiced the court’s necessity determination | Government: omission was an oversight; later application identified him; no advantage obtained by omission | No evidence of bad faith or prejudice; suppression not warranted |
| Franks hearing (deliberate/reckless misstatements) | Santiago: alleged material misstatements/omissions require evidentiary hearing | Government: inaccuracies were minor and would not defeat probable cause or necessity | Santiago failed to make the substantial preliminary showing needed for a Franks hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413 (wiretap omission of known interceptees does not automatically require suppression)
- United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 (suppression required when statutorily mandated preapproval procedures are ignored)
- United States v. Chavez, 416 U.S. 562 (not every Title III defect renders interceptions unlawful)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (standard for evidentiary hearing when affidavit contains deliberate or reckless falsehoods)
- United States v. McLee, 436 F.3d 751 (Seventh Circuit on practical/common-sense necessity showing for wiretaps)
- United States v. McMurtrey, 704 F.3d 502 (standards for Franks preliminary showing)