United States v. Portillo-Uranga
28 F.4th 168
| 10th Cir. | 2022Background
- DEA conducted a multi-year investigation (Phase I and II) of a Kansas City drug-trafficking organization; Jorge Portillo-Uranga (aka "Pelon") was a suspected leader.
- Investigators used traditional techniques (confidential sources, controlled buys, surveillance, GPS, search warrants, pen registers) but still lacked identities, stash locations, and supplier information.
- Federal court-authorized wiretaps (multiple target phones) ran from May 2014–July 2015 (Phase I) and Dec. 2016–Aug. 2017 (Phase II); Phase II interceptions produced 400+ relevant calls implicating Portillo-Uranga in large-scale cocaine and marijuana distribution.
- In Dec. 2017 DEA executed a search warrant at Portillo-Uranga’s Texas ranch, arrested him, and seized firearms, cash, multiple phones, false IDs, ledgers, and a fuel tank possibly used for smuggling.
- Portillo-Uranga moved to suppress wiretap-derived evidence (arguing lack of necessity and that interceptions occurred outside the Kansas court’s territorial jurisdiction); motion denied, he pleaded guilty reserving appeal; he also challenged a two-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for firearm possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Portillo-Uranga) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Necessity of wiretaps under Title III | Affidavits showed other techniques tried/failed and explained with specificity why wiretaps were needed to identify leaders, suppliers, stash sites, and obtain admissible evidence | Wiretaps unnecessary: goals already achieved, traditional techniques had been successful, wiretaps were not justified | Affirmed — district court didn’t abuse discretion; affidavits satisfied §2518(1)(c) and showed necessity |
| Territorial jurisdiction of interception (where interception occurred) | Intercepts were first heard at DEA listening post in Kansas, so within authorizing court’s territorial jurisdiction | Interception occurred outside Kansas because calls were routed via DEA division office in Missouri; suppression required | Argument waived for failure to preserve; even on review, precedent supports interception as occurring where first heard (Kansas); no reversible error |
| Two-level sentencing enhancement for firearms (U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(1)) | Firearms were found in close spatial proximity to cash, phones, ledgers, false IDs, and a fuel tank linked to trafficking — establishing temporal/spatial nexus | Government failed to prove temporal/spatial nexus between firearms and drug activity | Affirmed — government met preponderance burden; defendant did not show it was clearly improbable firearms were connected to the offense |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Foy, 641 F.3d 455 (10th Cir. 2011) (necessity requirement for wiretaps; officers need not exhaust all techniques but must provide specific justification)
- United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143 (1974) (purpose of necessity requirement)
- United States v. Cline, 349 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2003) (traditional investigative techniques list and necessity analysis)
- United States v. Dahda, 853 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2017) (interception occurs where tapped phone is located or where intercepted communications are first heard)
- United States v. Ramirez-Encarnacion, 291 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2002) (presumption of validity for authorized wiretaps; burden on defendant to show invalidity)
- United States v. Pompey, 264 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2001) (government must show temporal and spatial nexus for firearm enhancement)
- United States v. Tavarez, 40 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 1994) (interception defined to include where contents are first heard)
- United States v. Zapata, 546 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2008) (clarifying necessity standard; no exhaustion required)