United States v. Barajas
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4475
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- DEA investigated a San Diego–area drug trafficking organization trafficking methamphetamine and cocaine from Mexico.
- Agents used wiretaps on TT No. 1, TT No. 24, and TT No. 26 and GPS pinging data on TT Nos. 24 and 26.
- TT No. 1 wiretap required a judicial finding of necessity under California/Title III standards; TT Nos. 24 and 26 followed with longer affidavits.
- Affidavits for TTNos. 1, 24, 26 detailed probable cause and necessity; proposed orders sometimes included GPS data, though affidavits did not request GPS data.
- District court denied Barajas’s motion to suppress wiretap and GPS evidence; Barajas appealed; conviction and sentence upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wiretaps had sufficient necessity under Title III | Barajas argues TT Nos. 1, 24, 26 lacked necessity. | Barajas contends affidavits failed to show inadequacy of traditional methods. | Wiretaps deemed necessary; district court's finding affirmed. |
| Whether GPS pinging lacked probable cause | Barajas asserts no probable cause for GPS data since affidavits did not request GPS. | Barajas says lack of nexus between activity and GPS location. | Probable cause not satisfied on record, but good-faith exception cures; Leon analysis applied. |
| Whether good-faith exception applies to GPS data | Barajas argues officers knew warrant invalid for GPS data. | Government asserts unsettled law and reliance on standard forms. | Good-faith exception applied; suppression not required. |
| Whether pinging falls within Title III suppression or is independently governed | Barajas argues GPS data not governed by Title III; suppression issues unresolved. | Government treats GPS data as outside Title III suppression; Leon governs.” | GPS data not suppressed under Title III; Leon governs good-faith analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ramirez-Encarnacion, 291 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2002) (wiretap necessity standard and burden on defendant)
- United States v. Foy, 641 F.3d 455 (10th Cir. 2011) (necessity showing in wiretaps in conspiracy cases)
- United States v. Zapata, 546 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2008) (continuation of wiretap authorizations in ongoing investigations)
- United States v. Verdin-Garcia, 516 F.3d 884 (10th Cir. 2008) (new information in successive wiretap applications supports necessity)
- United States v. Burkhart, 602 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2010) (framework for evaluating probable cause and nexus for searches under warrants)