129 F. Supp. 3d 975
S.D. Cal.2015Background
- In June 2013 the government obtained a court-authorized wiretap on retired SDPD detective Ernesto Encinas to investigate alleged bribery and related crimes; a 60-day interception period followed and the wiretap was later renewed.
- Encinas assisted defendant Jose Azano in making illicit campaign contributions; Azano is an alien lawfully present and alleged to have funneled about $600,000 in illegal donations. Ravneet Singh ran Electionmall Inc., which provided campaign services paid for indirectly by Azano.
- The Encinas wiretap captured one call between Encinas and Azano (during the initial period) and two calls between Encinas and Singh (during the renewal period).
- Azano and Singh moved to suppress all wiretap intercepts and derivative evidence arguing constitutional and Title III violations, including alleged government subterfuge (omitting campaign-finance investigation details) and failures of necessity, probable cause, and minimization.
- The government argued defendants only had standing to challenge intercepted communications in which they were parties and represented it would not offer the intercepted calls involving Azano or Singh (nor derivative evidence) at trial, rendering suppression motions moot as to most evidence.
- The district court held that Azano and Singh had standing only for the specific intercepted calls in which they participated (Azano: one call in the initial period; Singh: two calls in the renewal), found the motions otherwise moot because the government will not use those calls or derived evidence at trial, and denied the suppression motions without reaching the substantive Title III challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge wiretap evidence | Azano/Singh: because they were parties to at least one intercepted call, they can suppress all intercepted communications and derivatives | Govt: standing limited to communications in which the movant was a participant or which occurred on movant's premises | Court: Standing limited to specific intercepted calls in which defendant participated (Azano: one call; Singh: two calls during renewal) |
| Mootness of suppression motions | Azano/Singh: motions not moot because government used intercepted calls in post-wiretap warrants and may rely on derivative evidence; also seek dismissal for alleged subterfuge | Govt: will not introduce the contested intercepted calls or any evidence derived solely from them; any references in affidavits are superfluous and can be excised | Court: motions moot as to contested calls because govt will not use them and any derivative references are removable without undermining probable cause |
| Challenge to wiretap affidavits (necessity/probable cause/minimization) | Azano/Singh: affidavits omitted campaign-finance investigation and failed to show necessity/probable cause; request Franks hearing | Govt: defends affidavits; procedural standing/mootness bars relief | Court: did not reach merits or Franks hearing request because resolution based on standing and mootness |
| Relief sought (suppression and dismissal) | Singh: seeks dismissal of indictment due to alleged subterfuge in obtaining wiretap | Govt: compliance with Title III renewals; no basis for dismissal | Court: no dismissal under Title III or supervisory power; denied dismissal request |
Key Cases Cited
- Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (Sup. Ct.) (suppression may be urged only by those whose Fourth Amendment rights were violated)
- United States v. King, 478 F.2d 494 (9th Cir.) (defendant may move to suppress wiretap evidence if participant in intercepted conversation or interception occurred on defendant's premises)
- United States v. Oliva, 705 F.3d 390 (9th Cir.) (standing where defendant was named in intercept order and believed to be primary user/participant)
- United States v. Taketa, 923 F.2d 665 (9th Cir.) (Title III standing is no broader than Fourth Amendment standing)