United States v. Savoy
883 F. Supp. 2d 101
D.D.C.2012Background
- In 2009–2010, the FBI Safe Streets Task Force investigated cocaine/crack distribution in the 4200 block of Fourth St. SE, DC, using informants and controlled buys.
- Wire interceptions were authorized for Scurry (two orders), Hudson, Savoy, and Johnson, followed by later additions of Scurry/Keena Scurry and James Brown.
- The government’s theory linked Scurry to distribution, then tied his suppliers Hudson and Savoy to further co-conspirators, culminating in Johnson’s supply role and Brown’s involvement.
- Indictments were returned in November 2010; a superseding indictment added defendants and increased the conspiracy amount.
- Defendants moved to suppress the intercepted communications, challenging probable cause, necessity, minimization, and the authority/authorization of the wiretap orders; the court denied the motions.
- The court upheld the wiretap orders and applications as to all defendants, finding probable cause, necessity, and proper authorization, with some technical defects deemed non-prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause and necessity of Scurry wiretap | Scurry argues affidavits lacked probable cause and fail necessity | The government relied on conclusory statements and failed necessity | Probable cause and necessity satisfied; motions denied on these grounds |
| Probable cause and necessity of Hudson wiretap | Hudson contends affidavits lack probable cause/necessity | Affidavits show multiple drug-related communications and impracticability of other methods | Probable cause and necessity properly established; motions denied |
| Savoy/Brown: authorization and roving-wiretaps concerns | Savoy/Brown challenge authorization and roving-tap requirements | No roving-tap; standard wiretap; authorization adequately documented; any defect is technical | Wiretap approved; roving-tap requirements not applicable; any facial insufficiency was non-prejudicial |
| Johnson: jurisdiction, facilities description, and authorization | Johnson challenges jurisdiction, facility description, and official authorization | Listen-post within judge’s jurisdiction; facilities identified by phone/ESN; authorization proper despite omissions | Jurisdiction proper; facility identification adequate; authorization defect is technical and non-prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Becton, 601 F.3d 588 (D.C.Cir.2010) (probable cause/necessity under Title III; standard for wiretap approvals)
- United States v. Carter, 449 F.3d 1287 (D.C.Cir.2006) (necessity standard; need not exhaust every technique before seeking wiretap)
- United States v. Johnson, 696 F.2d 115 (D.C.Cir.1982) (necessity requirement guidance; non-exhaustion permissible when impracticable)
- United States v. Sobamowo, 892 F.2d 90 (D.C.Cir.1989) (affidavits cannot be conclusory; must tie to detailed investigative events)
- United States v. Goodwin, 131 F.3d 132 (2d Cir.1997) (identification of facilities by number/ESN satisfies §2518(4)(b) (non-roving))