Unpublished Disposition, 872 F.2d 431 (9th Cir. 1989)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Luigi Gelfuso and John Joseph Vaccaro appeal their convictions for conspiracy to collect an extension of credit by extortionate means in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894. Gelfuso also appeals his conviction for conspiracy and attempt to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1) and 846. Gelfuso and Vaccaro entered conditional guilty pleas reserving the right to appellate review of the district court's denial of pretrial motions to suppress wiretap evidence. Gelfuso and Vaccaro moved to suppress electronic surveillance evidence contending the evidence was obtained from wiretaps improperly authorized in violation of Title II of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520). We affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion the authorizing district court's determination that the wiretaps were necessary. United States v. Brone, 792 F.2d 1504, 1506 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v. Brown, 761 F.2d 1272, 1275 (9th Cir. 1985)). A district court may authorize wiretapping if, based on facts submitted by the government the court determines that "normal investigative procedures have been tried and failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous." 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3) (c).

The affidavits in this case support the district court's finding that the wiretap was necessary. The affidavits support a finding "that ordinary investigative procedures, employed in good faith, would likely ... [have been] ... ineffective...." Brone, 792 F.2d at 1506 (citing United States v. Ippolito, 774 F.2d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir. 1985)). Law enforcement officials "need not exhaust every conceivable alternative before obtaining a wiretap." United States v. Spagnuolo, 549 F.2d 705, 710 (9th Cir. 1977). We find no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.