United States v. Portillo-Uranga, 2:17-cr-20074

DEA obtained multiple Title III orders (nine orders authorizing 30‑day interceptions) in a multi‑target drug‑trafficking investigation; Defendant challenges three orders covering Target Phones 21–29.
Affidavits by SA David Maguire described investigation goals: identify full scope, leadership, suppliers, customers, stash locations, money flow, and obtain prosecutable evidence.
The Government relied on prior techniques (confidential informants, one undercover, physical surveillance, GPS, pole cameras, limited search warrants, interviews) but asserted those methods had limitations and had not revealed the organization’s full scope.
Defendant argued (1) many primary objectives had already been met before the wiretaps, (2) the affidavits failed to particularize why other procedures would fail, and (3) he lacks standing to challenge Target Phone 21.
The court found Defendant lacked standing to challenge Target Phone 21 because he was only referenced in intercepted calls, not a party or the target, but evaluated necessity for all contested orders on the merits.
The Court concluded the affidavits met the §2518(1)(c) ‘‘necessity’’ requirement and denied the motion to suppress.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing as to Target Phone 21	Castaneda was an aggrieved person because conversations referring to him would be used at trial	Mere references to the defendant in intercepted calls do not confer standing	Defendant lacks standing for Phone 21; he was not a party, target, or on the premises of interception
Whether wiretaps met §2518(1)(c) necessity requirement	Affidavits provided full and particularized statements showing other techniques were tried, failed, or were unlikely/too dangerous	Wiretaps were unnecessary because primary objectives had already been achieved before applications	Court held government met necessity; objectives still legitimate and not already achieved
Adequacy of showing traditional techniques tried/likely to fail	Government detailed use and limits of informants, undercover, surveillance, GPS, pole cameras, warrants, interviews, etc. and explained why some methods were not used	Government did not exhaust or sufficiently particularize why other methods (more controlled buys, continued surveillance, trash pulls, interviews, grand jury) would fail	Court found explanations sufficient under the ‘‘common sense’’ standard; no requirement to exhaust all conceivable methods
Suppression remedy if necessity lacking	Government opposed suppression; sought to preserve evidence obtained via wiretaps	Defendant sought suppression of fruits of the wiretaps	Because necessity was satisfied, suppression was denied

United States v. Zapata, 546 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir.) (necessity requirement cases and standards for wiretaps)
United States v. Killingsworth, 117 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir.) (examples of traditional investigative techniques)
United States v. Mondragon, 52 F.3d 291 (10th Cir.) (necessity requirement and insufficiency of conclusory affidavits)
United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419 (10th Cir.) (purpose of necessity requirement)
Kahn v. United States, 415 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1974) (wiretap intrusiveness and necessity rationale)
United States v. Ramirez‑Encarnacion, 291 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir.) (common sense review of necessity)
United States v. Cline, 349 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to show invalid authorization)
Donovan v. United States, 429 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1977) (standing for interception challenges belongs to "aggrieved person")
United States v. Faulkner, 439 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir.) (defining elements of aggrieved person)
United States v. Foy, 641 F.3d 455 (10th Cir.) (uncovering conspiracy scope can justify wiretaps)
United States v. Johnson, 645 F.2d 865 (10th Cir.) (investigative need to identify all members and scope)
United States v. Barajas, 710 F.3d 1102 (10th Cir.) (affirming necessity where affidavits explained why traditional techniques were ineffective)