United States v. Robert Cota, Jr.
695 F. App'x 203
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Robert Cota Jr. convicted by jury of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; sentenced to 240 months. Appeals from denial of pretrial motion to suppress wiretap evidence.
- Central dispute concerned sufficiency of wiretap affidavits under the statutory “full and complete statement” and necessity requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2518.
- Cota argued affidavits relied on boilerplate, lacked particularity, and omitted a known Fourth Amendment search waiver (the “Fourth waiver”), warranting a Franks hearing.
- Government relied on detailed affidavit material showing numerous traditional investigative techniques tried or reasonably unlikely to succeed, and argued omission of the Fourth waiver was neither deliberate nor material.
- Issuing courts approved the wiretaps; district court denied suppression and denied a Franks hearing; district court also applied a prior felony under 21 U.S.C. § 851 to enhance Cota’s sentence.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed: affidavits sufficient overall, no Franks hearing required, necessity finding not an abuse of discretion, and sentencing enhancement did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavits satisfied § 2518(1)(c) “full and complete statement” requirement (boilerplate/particularity) | Affidavits contained impermissible boilerplate and lacked particularized facts | Affidavits, read as a whole, contained specific, probative facts showing investigative techniques tried/insufficient | Affidavits sufficient; boilerplate not fatal when balanced against detailed facts; affirmed |
| Whether omission of Cota’s Fourth-waiver entitled him to a Franks hearing | Government’s failure to disclose the waiver was material and deliberate, warranting hearing | Omission was not shown to be deliberate/reckless nor material to necessity finding | No Franks hearing required: no sufficient showing of intent/recklessness or materiality; affirmed |
| Whether issuing court abused discretion in finding wiretap necessity under § 2518(3)(c) | Wiretap unnecessary because traditional techniques could have sufficed | Investigation goals and limitations of traditional techniques justified wiretap necessity in a conspiracy case | No abuse of discretion; necessity finding sustained |
| Whether sentencing enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 851 violated Sixth Amendment | Enhancement based on prior conviction must be found by a jury | Prior-conviction enhancement is a sentencing factor; not an element for jury under controlling precedent | No Sixth Amendment violation; district court properly applied § 851; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Christie v. United States, 825 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016) (evaluating sufficiency of wiretap affidavit language)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 851 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2017) (affidavits evaluated as a whole; materiality and boilerplate guidance)
- United States v. Blackmon, 273 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2001) (warning against boilerplate conclusions in wiretap affidavits)
- United States v. Commito, 918 F.2d 95 (9th Cir. 1990) (affidavits with many probative facts can withstand boilerplate criticisms)
- United States v. Gonzalez, Inc., 412 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2005) (Franks-hearing preliminary showing standard)
- United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) (issuing court’s discretion in necessity findings for conspiracies)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior conviction as sentencing factor, not jury element)