United States v. Robert Rodriguez
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4429
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rodriguez, a member of the Tri-City Thunder Hills gang tied to the Mexican Mafia, was convicted by a jury of (1) conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, (2) conspiracy to import methamphetamine, and (3) distribution of methamphetamine; judgment affirmed but sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing.
- Law enforcement obtained two court-authorized wiretaps based on lengthy affidavits describing confidential sources, surveillance, pen registers, toll analysis, and why other techniques would be unproductive or dangerous given the Mexican Mafia’s violence and insularity.
- Rodriguez moved to suppress the wiretap evidence, arguing the district court applied the wrong standard of review and that the affidavits failed to contain a “full and complete statement” of necessity under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c); he also argued the affidavits omitted that he was subject to a Fourth Amendment search-waiver.
- At sentencing the government filed a § 851 information seeking a statutory enhancement based on three prior convictions; the district court applied the enhancement (20‑year mandatory minimum), denied a USSG § 3E1.1 acceptance adjustment, and applied a USSG § 3B1.1 leader/organizer enhancement; sentence imposed was 600 months.
- The Ninth Circuit held (1) on appeal it would conduct de novo review of whether the wiretap affidavits contained a full and complete statement under § 2518(1)(c), and otherwise review the issuing judge’s necessity determination for abuse of discretion; it upheld the sufficiency of the affidavits and the wiretaps.
- The court vacated Rodriguez’s sentence and remanded because the district court failed to comply strictly with the § 851(b) procedural colloquy and the record left uncertainty whether the required proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard was used to establish the prior convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rodriguez) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review on suppression of wiretap evidence | District court erred by applying only abuse-of-discretion and deferring to issuing judge; reviewing judge must do de novo review of § 2518(1)(c) necessity statements | Issuing judge’s findings should be given deference; abuse-of-discretion review appropriate | Court: reviewing district judges must review de novo whether affidavit contains a full and complete statement under § 2518(1)(c); if satisfied, review issuing judge’s necessity finding for abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of wiretap affidavits / necessity under § 2518(1)(c) | Affidavits lacked particularized necessity as to Rodriguez and omitted that he had a Fourth Amendment search waiver | Affidavits contained case‑specific facts (sources, surveillance, danger) showing other methods were unlikely to succeed; search‑waiver omission would not have changed the necessity analysis | Court: affidavits contained a full and complete statement of facts and the issuing judge did not abuse discretion in authorizing the wiretaps; omission of search waiver was not prejudicial here |
| § 851 sentencing enhancement procedures (colloquy & proof) | § 851 procedures were not followed; defense was not personally asked to affirm/deny priors and court may not have applied proper proof standard; error prejudicial | Government relied on certified conviction records; argued procedural defect harmless | Court: district court failed to comply with § 851(b) colloquy and created uncertainty about the proof standard; error not harmless — vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing |
| Sentencing guideline adjustments (USSG § 3B1.1 and § 3E1.1) | Judge erred by making leader/organizer finding without jury and by denying acceptance adjustment | Leader/organizer adjustment did not affect statutory max or mandatory minimum so Alleyne/Apprendi not implicated; defendant failed to show genuine contrition for § 3E1.1 | Court: application of § 3B1.1 did not violate Sixth Amendment; denial of § 3E1.1 was not clear error. These issues to be reconsidered at resentencing if necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carneiro, 861 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir.) (wiretap statutory requirements)
- United States v. Christie, 825 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.) (necessity requirement and review standards for wiretaps)
- United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 (Sup. Ct.) (Title III exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Lynch, 437 F.3d 902 (9th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review of issuing judge’s necessity finding)
- United States v. Canales Gomez, 358 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir.) (conspiracy investigations warrant more leeway for wiretaps)
- United States v. Gonzalez, Inc., 412 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir.) (each wiretap application must independently satisfy necessity)
- United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900 (9th Cir.) (approving independent district‑court review of wiretap affidavits)
- United States v. Blackmon, 273 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir.) (requirement to assess accuracy and omissions in affidavits)
- United States v. McGuire, 307 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir.) (upholding necessity findings in violent/insular conspiracies)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (Sup. Ct.) (prior conviction exception to Apprendi)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Sup. Ct.) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury)