N.D.Ill.: SW was ineffective investigative device, justifying wiretap

In a wiretapping case, the diverse places that defendant stored drugs made the use of a search warrant ineffective as an investigative device because only a small part of his stash would be recovered, and the execution of warrants would blow their cover and cause the rest to disappear. This was necessity for a wiretap. United States v. Stewart, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64720 (N.D. Ill. June 29, 2010)*:

Sixth, Agent Biegalski avers that the use of search warrants would have been ineffective and compromised the investigation. (See Biegalski Aff. PP 65-68.) Because Defendants stored contraband in multiple locations, many of which were unknown to the Government, any seizure would have represented just a fraction of the drugs and money in Defendants’ possession. (See id.) Moreover, execution of search warrants would have tipped off Defendants to the Government’s investigation, possibly causing them to flee the jurisdiction, destroy evidence, or step up counter-surveillance efforts. (See id.) Warrant-backed searches would therefore have been ineffective in determining the full scope of the Atkins conspiracy, thus supporting Judge Holderman’s determination of necessity. See Gray, 410 F.3d at 343 (holding that search warrant would be ineffective in obtaining all of drug gang’s contraband and would tip off defendants, thus supporting necessity of wiretap).

The officers’ equivocation on the consent issue was reason enough for the USMJ to conclude that the government failed to prove that the search of defendant’s property for a gun was by consent or reasonable, and the USMJ recommendation to grant the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Taylor, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64633 (W.D. Tenn. June 29, 2010),* R&R 722 F. Supp. 2d 937 (W.D. Tenn. May 5, 2010).*

Plaintiff’s arrest for possession of a weapon in his luggage while on an interstate trip by air arguably legal under 18 U.S.C. § 926A did not make his arrest for possession of a firearm in violation of N.Y. law a false arrest. Torraco v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 615 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010).* [Volokh Conspiracy here.]