United States v. Mayel Perez-Valencia, 727 F.3d 852

Perez-Valencia appeals his conviction after a conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
A wiretap at issue was authorized by the San Bernardino County Superior Court on March 30, 2010, filed by ADA Dennis Christy who was purportedly designated to act in the district attorney’s absence.
Perez-Valencia contends the wiretap application was invalid under 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2), which limits filing to the principal prosecuting attorney.
DA Michael Ramos was out of office March 29–31, 2010; a memo designated three individuals to act in his absence, including Christy, Hackleman, and Hansen.
Christy stated in the wiretap application that Ramos was the DA and that Christy was designated to act in his absence; the state court approved the application the same day.
The district court’s record does not clearly establish the scope of Christy’s authority; the court remands to develop the factual record on the designation and authority questions, retaining jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ADA Christy had authority to apply for the wiretap during Ramos’s absence under §2516(2) and §629.50	Perez-Valencia argues only the principal prosecuting attorney may apply.	Government contends designation under state law permits such applications during absence.	Remanded for factual development; no ruling on authority.
Whether Christy possessed plenary DA powers or only limited wiretap-application authority, and whether designation was hierarchical	Perez-Valencia contends the designation was insufficient to confer full powers.	Government argues designation under state law could authorize appropriate application powers.	Remanded for factual development; no ruling on the scope of authority.

United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522 (2nd Cir. 1977) (delegation under state law for wiretap authority)
United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1998) (attenuation of taint doctrine)