## Facts

- Police detectives investigated a narcotics trafficking organization allegedly led by suspected kingpin William Muhammad.
- Investigators sought and obtained a federal judge’s authorization under the federal wiretap statute (Title III) to intercept communications over Muhammad’s phone.
- In the wiretap application, investigators described their prior use of conventional investigative methods and explained why those methods had been difficult or unsuccessful in identifying the gang’s activities and membership.
- Investigators stated that the organization’s reputation for violence made evidence gathering harder by intimidating potential witnesses and discouraging cooperation.
- Intercepted communications from the wiretap later implicated David Marin as a coconspirator with Muhammad.
- After being charged in federal district court, Marin moved to suppress the wiretap evidence offered against him, challenging the legality of the wiretap authorization.

## Issues

1. Whether the Title III wiretap authorization was supported by a sufficient showing of “necessity” (i.e., that normal investigative procedures had been tried and failed or reasonably appeared unlikely to succeed or too dangerous), such that the intercepted communications should not be suppressed.

## Decision

- The court denied Marin’s motion to suppress.
- The court concluded that investigators provided a full and complete account of the limits of traditional investigative techniques in this case, including the effect of the organization’s violence and intimidation on witness cooperation.
- Because the wiretap application satisfied Title III’s necessity requirement, the intercepted communications were not excluded.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title III, a wiretap order requires a showing that normal investigative procedures have been tried and failed, or reasonably appear unlikely to succeed, or are too dangerous.
- The necessity requirement does not demand exhaustion of every conceivable alternative; it requires a reasonable explanation, grounded in the investigation’s facts, for why less intrusive methods are inadequate or unsafe.
- Facts showing a criminal organization’s violence, intimidation, or witness reluctance may support a finding that traditional tools (such as interviews, informants, or undercover efforts) are unlikely to yield evidence needed to identify participants and prove the conspiracy.
- When the government’s application explains investigative limits with case-specific detail, a court may uphold the wiretap and decline to suppress communications intercepted under the resulting order.

## Conclusion

United States v. Marin concerns a suppression challenge to wiretap evidence in a narcotics conspiracy investigation. Investigators obtained judicial authorization to wiretap suspected leader William Muhammad’s phone after explaining why standard investigative methods were not sufficient, including the deterrent effect of the gang’s violent reputation on witness cooperation. The court held that the wiretap application met Title III’s necessity requirement and denied Marin’s motion to suppress the intercepted communications tying him to the conspiracy.


United States v. Marin, Case No. 1:19-CR-00256-JLT-SKO (2024)