United States v. Carey, No. 14-50222 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseFederal agents, acting pursuant to the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-22, secured a wiretap order for a San Diego phone number based on evidence that Ignacio Escamilla Estrada (Escamilla) was using the number in a drug smuggling and distribution conspiracy. At some point during a seven-day period, the agents realized that Escamilla was not using the phone. Agents continued listening, however, believing at least initially that the people speaking on the phone might have been part of the Escamilla conspiracy. Appellant Michael Carey was eventually identified as a speaker in some of the phone calls, and he was then charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The district court denied Carey's motion to suppress. The court saw no reason to depart from principles requiring cessation of a wiretap once the government knows or reasonably should know that the person speaking on the tapped line is not involved in the target conspiracy. Once the officers know or should know they are listening to conversations outside the scope of the wiretap order, they must discontinue monitoring the wiretap until they secure a new wiretap order, if possible. Applying this rule, the court noted that Carey does not challenge the validity of the wiretap order as to Escamilla, so the agents were justified in initially listening to the conversations at issue. But because the order did not authorize agents to listen to Carey or his associates, the government may only use evidence obtained in accordance with the “plain hearing” doctrine discussed above. The record does not indicate what evidence was obtained before the agents knew or should have known that they were listening to calls outside of the Escamilla conspiracy. The court vacated and remanded to allow the parties to present more evidence on remand to determine whether any evidence should be suppressed under the proper legal standard.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated the district court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence derived from the use of wiretaps. The panel held that police may use evidence obtained in “plain hearing” when they overhear speakers unrelated to the target conspiracy while listening to a valid wiretap, without having complied with the Wiretap Act requirements of probable cause and necessity as to those specific speakers, but that agents must discontinue monitoring the wiretap once they know or reasonably should know that the phone calls only involved speakers outside the target conspiracy. Because the record does not show exactly when agents knew or should have known that the phone conversations did not involve the persons involved in the target conspiracy, the panel vacated the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and remanded to the district court on an open record to determine what evidence was lawfully obtained in “plain hearing.” Judge Kozinski dissented from the part of the opinion where the majority remands on an open record. He wrote that if the record does not show whether the agents reasonably believed that the conspiracies were related until after a traffic UNITED STATES V. CAREY 3 stop, the defendant, who presented no evidence contradicting an agent’s sworn declaration, has only himself to blame.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.