United States v. Rodrigues
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3730
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- FBI and Boston Police conducted multi-month investigation of two gangs; court authorized four successive 30‑day wiretap orders targeting six cell phones (Aug–Jan).
- Rodrigues was never listed as a target in the wiretap applications, though agents intercepted calls later believed to involve him and his identity was corroborated by surveillance.
- Government moved to seal interceptions and postpone inventory notice; some sealing motions were filed after certain wiretap expirations.
- Rodrigues was indicted with 29 others; he moved to suppress wiretap-derived evidence arguing bad‑faith omissions, lack of Title III necessity, untimely sealing, and requested a Franks hearing.
- District court denied suppression and any hearing; jury deadlocked at trial, Rodrigues pleaded guilty to marijuana conspiracy while reserving the suppression appeal.
- First Circuit affirmed: found no clear error on bad‑faith/omission and prejudice, wiretap necessity minimally adequate, sealing delay satisfactorily explained, and hearing claim waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bad‑faith omissions from wiretap applications / failure to name Rodrigues | Government deliberately omitted Rodrigues as target and as identified person to avoid Title III notice; seek suppression | Omission was inadvertent or reasonable given investigation; no bad faith and little prejudice | No suppression; district court’s finding of no bad faith or prejudice affirmed |
| Necessity under 18 U.S.C. §2518(1)(c) | Applications failed to show other techniques were tried/likely to fail | Extensive affidavit documented traditional techniques used and why wiretap was necessary | Applications were minimally adequate; necessity requirement satisfied |
| Timely sealing under §2518(8)(a) | Recordings from Sept/Oct interceptions not sealed "immediately" upon expiration; suppression warranted | Short (two business day) delay explained by holiday and secure storage; integrity preserved | Delay reasonable with satisfactory explanation; no suppression |
| Request for evidentiary/Franks hearing | District court should have held hearing to explore alleged misrepresentations and bad faith | Request was perfunctory/joined with co‑defendants; no basis shown for Franks hearing | Claim waived for inadequate/barebones request; no hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (Title III regulates electronic surveillance and protects wire/oral privacy)
- Donovan v. United States, 429 U.S. 413 (Sup. Ct. 1977) (not every Title III violation renders interception unlawful; bad faith contexts distinct)
- United States v. Harrigan, 557 F.2d 879 (1st Cir. 1977) (suppression required for deliberate omissions that prevent inventory notice or cause incurable prejudice)
- United States v. Martinez, 452 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006) (standards for necessity and permissible investigative goals for wiretaps)
- United States v. Santana, 342 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2003) (government need not exhaust all techniques; reasonable good‑faith efforts suffice)
- United States v. Mora, 821 F.2d 860 (1st Cir. 1987) (tests for satisfactory explanation when sealing is not immediate)
- United States v. Yeje‑Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (overlapping affidavits permissible if they contain concrete, case‑specific detail)