U.S. v. Jones

In prosecution on drug conspiracy, murder for hire and money laundering charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying multiple defendants’ motions to suppress guns and firearms seized from their homes through use of court-approved wiretaps. Dist. Ct. could properly find that government’s explanation for use of first wiretap was sufficient, even though defendants argued that government had failed in this regard, where traditional investigational techniques had proved fruitful at time of wiretap application. Government’s explanation that wiretap was needed to help investigate nature and methods of defendants’ drug trafficking business and location of drugs, as well as to determine identities and roles of various accomplices to conspiracy was sufficient to justify wiretap. Also, government provided sufficient explanation for second wiretap, where continued use of confidential informant was deemed too dangerous, where there was still need to confirm true nature of many visits to one defendant’s home, and where traditional investigation techniques had proved to be limited in their usefulness. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying second motion to suppress filed by one defendant with regard to search of his home, where defendant argued that search warrant was not supported by probable cause. Ct. of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that there was insufficient facts to establish that stated address in affidavit was his address, or that drugs would be located in his home, where intercepted communication indicated that said defendant had ordered drugs some 10 days prior to warrant application. Fact that Dist. Ct. had failed to conduct evidentiary hearing on motion did not required different result.