Background
The United States appealed a district court order granting Constantine Panousopoulos’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a wiretap. The wiretap targeted Felipe Fuentes, then Assessor for Santa Cruz County, Arizona, based on allegations of bribery involving the County Treasurer.
The court’s reasoning
The court found the district court did not clearly err in determining the affiant acted with reckless disregard for the truth by claiming the Treasurer withheld a notice as a favor, when Arizona law showed no notice was due. The court further held the affidavit failed to establish necessity under Section twenty-five eighteen of Title eighteen of the United States Code because normal investigative procedures, including recorded face-to-face meetings, had not failed.
A district court’s decision to grant a motion to suppress wiretap evidence is reviewed de novo.
United States v. Gonzalez, Inc., 412 F.3d 1102, 1115 (9th Cir. 2005)
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that wiretap affidavits must accurately reflect applicable state law and that necessity requirements cannot be met when normal investigative methods remain viable.