## Facts

- Federal agents investigating a cocaine-smuggling and distribution conspiracy led by Ignacio Escamilla Estrada obtained a Title III wiretap order for a San Diego phone number believed to be used by Escamilla or his associates.
- Over several days of interception, agents realized Escamilla was not using the phone but continued monitoring, believing the calls might still relate to the targeted conspiracy or offenses listed in the order.
- Intercepted calls led agents to conduct a traffic stop and seize cash and drugs.
- The interceptions identified Adrian Madrid and, through him, Michael Carey as participants in a separate cocaine-distribution conspiracy with no overlap with the Escamilla conspiracy.
- Carey was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
- Carey moved to suppress the interceptions and derivative evidence, arguing continued monitoring after agents knew (or should have known) the calls were unrelated violated the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2522, and required a new wiretap order.
- The district court denied suppression, reasoning agents reasonably believed the callers might be affiliated with Escamilla or offenses covered by the order.
- Carey entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III permits use of communications intercepted under a valid wiretap order when the communications reveal a different, unrelated conspiracy involving speakers not connected to the target conspiracy.
2. Whether, and at what point, agents must cease monitoring once they know or reasonably should know intercepted calls only involve non-target speakers, such that continued interception exceeds the wiretap order’s scope and triggers suppression.
3. What remedy applies when the record does not establish when monitoring became unauthorized: affirmance, suppression, or remand for line-drawing between admissible and inadmissible evidence.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of Carey’s suppression motion and remanded for further findings.
- The court held that a “plain hearing” doctrine may allow admission of incriminating statements overheard while agents are lawfully executing a valid Title III order, even if the statements involve persons outside the target conspiracy.
- The court further held that agents must stop monitoring once they know or reasonably should know the calls only involve speakers outside the target conspiracy; continuing to listen beyond that point violates the Wiretap Act.
- Because the record did not establish when agents crossed that threshold, the court remanded for the district court to determine (a) when monitoring should have stopped and (b) which evidence, if any, was obtained while agents were still entitled to be listening and thus admissible.

## Legal Principles

- Title III wiretaps are permissible only within the statute’s strict substantive and procedural limits, including probable cause and necessity, and courts do not treat these requirements as technicalities.
- Evidence may be admissible under a “plain hearing” doctrine when:
  - agents act pursuant to a valid wiretap order,
  - they are initially entitled to be listening under that order, and
  - they unintentionally overhear incriminating communications involving persons not within the target conspiracy.
- A valid wiretap order does not authorize indefinite monitoring; authority persists only while it is reasonable to believe intercepted communications fall within the order’s scope.
- Once agents know or reasonably should know that intercepted calls only involve non-target speakers unconnected to the target conspiracy, continued monitoring exceeds the order’s scope and violates the Wiretap Act, requiring suppression of unlawfully obtained communications and fruits, subject to factual line-drawing.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit recognized limited admissibility of non-target communications overheard during lawful Title III monitoring but required agents to stop listening once it became unreasonable to believe the calls related to the target conspiracy; it vacated the suppression ruling and remanded to determine when monitoring became unauthorized and what evidence, if any, remains admissible.


United States v. Carey, 836 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016)