United States v. Richard North
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21656
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Government sought wiretaps on several Lofton phones; Target 4 and others were authorized by Judge Wingate in SDMississippi.
- Wiretaps revealed coordination between Lofton and person identified as Billy, later determined to be Richard North.
- North was implicated after a May 16, 2009 interception of his call and a Texas traffic stop revealed cocaine in his car.
- North was indicted for conspiracy to distribute cocaine; he moved to suppress wiretap evidence arguing issues of jurisdiction, minimization, and misrepresentations.
- District court denied the suppression motion; North appealed, arguing lack of territorial jurisdiction, misrepresentations, and improper minimization.
- Court reverses denial of suppression primarily on minimization grounds and remands for further proceedings; territorial jurisdiction discussion occupies separate, non-final scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimization standards applied? | North contends minimization was objectively unreasonable. | North argues government failed to minimize per §2518(5). | Minimization deemed objectively unreasonable; suppression required. |
| Territorial jurisdiction of the intercept order? | North asserts district court lacked authority to intercept Texas calls via Louisiana listening post. | Government relies on mobile interception device exception; district court validly authorized. | Not reached in majority; discussed as a separate consideration; concurrence questions authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 303 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2002) (minimization must be objectively reasonable under § 2518(5))
- Broussard v. United States, 989 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1993) (clear error standard for minimization factual findings)
- Giordano v. United States, 416 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1974) (Title III preconditions limit wiretap use; central to statutory scheme)
- United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1977) (suppression tied to congressional intent and statutory requirements)
- United States v. Denman, 100 F.3d 399 (5th Cir. 1996) (interception includes location and listening post under Title III)