Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Wilson, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    29 views3 pages
    1) William Kenneth Wilson appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, arguing that the district court erred in admitting evidence from two authorized wiretaps. 2) The court found that the government met the statutory requirement to show that normal investigative procedures had been exhausted or were unlikely to succeed before requesting wiretap authorization. 3) While some participants had been identified through normal techniques, not all customers and suppliers had been identified, and Wilson himself had not been identified prior to the second wiretap. The government sufficiently described the difficulties in fully penetrating the criminal enterprise through normal means.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-10-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-4001

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) William Kenneth Wilson appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, arguing that the district court erred in admitting evidence from two authorized wiretaps. 2) The court found that the government met the statutory requirement to show that normal investigative procedures had been exhausted or were unlikely to succeed before requesting wiretap authorization. 3) While some participants had been identified through normal techniques, not all customers and suppliers had been identified, and Wilson himself had not been identified prior to the second wiretap. The government sufficiently described the difficulties in fully penetrating the criminal enterprise through normal means.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    29 views3 pages

    United States v. Wilson, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) William Kenneth Wilson appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, arguing that the district court erred in admitting evidence from two authorized wiretaps. 2) The court found that the government met the statutory requirement to show that normal investigative procedures had been exhausted or were unlikely to succeed before requesting wiretap authorization. 3) While some participants had been identified through normal techniques, not all customers and suppliers had been identified, and Wilson himself had not been identified prior to the second wiretap. The government sufficiently described the difficulties in fully penetrating the criminal enterprise through normal means.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIAM KENNETH WILSON,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 02-4001

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge.
    (CR-01-253-S)
    Submitted: August 29, 2002
    Decided: October 7, 2002
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    Kenneth W. Ravenell, SCHULMAN, TREEM, KAMINKOW, GILDEN & RAVENELL, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
    Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, John F. Purcell, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    UNITED STATES v. WILSON

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    William Kenneth Wilson appeals from his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine
    base and five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846
    (2000). Wilson pled guilty and reserved the right to appeal the order
    denying his motion to suppress evidence derived from the two wiretaps that were authorized in the course of the underlying investigation. Finding no error, we affirm.
    Wilson contends that the district court erred in admitting evidence
    obtained through the use of wiretaps and other means of electronic
    surveillance because the Government failed to establish that it had
    exhausted ordinary investigation techniques before requesting authorization for electronic surveillance.
    Prior to granting an intercept order, the authorizing judge must find
    that "normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed
    or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too
    dangerous." 18 U.S.C. 2518(3)(c) (2000). The burden that the statutory provisions "impose upon the government to show the inadequacy
    of normal investigative techniques is not great, and the adequacy of
    such a showing is to be tested in a practical and common sense fashion . . . that does not hamper unduly the investigative powers of law
    enforcement agents." United States v. Smith, 31 F.3d 1294, 1297 (4th
    Cir. 1994). The government must base its need on real facts and specifically describe how it has encountered difficulties in penetrating
    the criminal enterprise or gathering evidence with normal techniques,
    so that a wiretap authorization is required. Id. at 1298.
    Authorization for a wiretap is permissible even if there exists sufficient evidence to arrest and prosecute the main conspirators. Findings
    of necessity are upheld "where traditional investigative techniques
    lead only to apprehension and prosecution of suppliers, major buyers
    or other satellite conspirators." United States v. Torres, 908 F.2d
    1417, 1422 (9th Cir. 1990). We have held that even where there was
    probable cause to arrest four of the principals named in the wiretap
    orders, the government was not precluded from carrying the investi-

    UNITED STATES v. WILSON

    gation further. United States v. Clerkley, 556 F.2d 709, 714 (4th Cir.
    1977).
    We conclude that the district court did not exceed the bounds of
    deference accorded it in making a wiretap application determination.
    While some participants had been identified, not all customers and
    suppliers had been identified or sufficient evidence collected prior to
    the wiretaps. In fact, Wilson himself had not been identified prior to
    the second wiretap. Further, the Government made specific statements
    regarding the facts of this investigation that satisfied the exhaustion
    requirement.
    We therefore affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
    materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like