United States v. Lomeli
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7791
8th Cir.2012Background
- US government appeals district court order suppressing wiretap evidence obtained October 22, 2009 in Nebraska; wiretap application omitted attaching the Attorney General-approved authorizing documents; magistrate judge initially recommended suppression for failure to attach authorization; after a supplemental hearing the government produced the two missing documents; magistrate judge again recommended suppression; district court adopted suppression and overruled government objections as moot; government argues the omission was technical and requests de novo review of legal conclusions.
- Wiretap statutory framework requires designation of authorized official and identification of authorizing officer; suppression may be warranted if the order is insufficient on its face or not followed, with core concern being pre-approval authorization safeguards.
- Magistrate judge treated omission as not merely technical and thus fatal; government produced documents at supplemental hearing but district court still adopted suppression.
- This court reviews suppression rulings for clear error on facts and de novo on legal conclusions.
- Dispute centers on whether failure to attach authorization documents violated core statutory safeguards and whether the good faith exception applies.
- Concluding: suppression of wiretap evidence is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of authorization documents is a technical defect | Lomeli/Hernandez contend it was technical | United States argues not technical | Omission is not technical; suppression affirmed |
| Whether good faith exception applies | Government relies on Moore-like good faith | Court should not permit good faith | Good faith does not apply; suppression affirmed |
| Procedural issue of district court review of supplemental findings | District court should review anew | No de novo needed for all issues | De novo review not required for this procedural point; merits govern |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moore, 41 F.3d 370 (8th Cir.1994) (facial insufficiency and core statutory requirement analysis; two-tier test for suppression)
- United States v. Chavez, 416 U.S. 562 (1974) (face of application mattered when authorizing official named; central role in safeguards)
- United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 (1974) (pre-application approval central; suppression when ignored)
- United States v. Gray, 521 F.3d 514 (6th Cir.2008) (denying suppression where authorizing official omitted but authorization known to judge)
- United States v. Radcliff, 331 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir.2003) (nonidentification of authorizing official distinguished; non-suppression in many cases depends on context)
- United States v. Fudge, 325 F.3d 910 (7th Cir.2003) (denying suppression where letters attached confirm authorization despite order omission)
- United States v. Callum, 410 F.3d 571 (9th Cir.2005) (asserts different treatment of technical defects in authorizing official identification)
- United States v. Barragan, 379 F.3d 524 (8th Cir.2004) (de novo review standard for legal conclusions under suppression)