United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge United States District Court
Jose Trinidad Garcia, Jr., has been indicted for one count of
Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances. [Filing
No. 1.] He has filed a motion to suppress all evidence
that he claims the Government illegally obtained as a result
of wiretap surveillance. [Filing No. 237.] The
Government opposes Mr. Garcia's motion. [Filing No.
251.] For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Mr.
Garcia's motion to suppress.
Amendment to the United States Constitution
Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S.
Const. amend. IV. “When a search is authorized by
a warrant, deference is owed to the issuing judge's
conclusion that there is probable cause.” United
States v. Carroll, 750 F.3d 700, 703-04 (7th Cir. 2014)
(quoting United States v. Sutton, 742 F.3d 770, 773
(7th Cir. 2014)). “Courts should defer to the issuing
judge's initial probable cause finding if there is
substantial evidence in the record that supports [the]
decision.” Carroll, 750 F.3d at 704.
2015, law enforcement was investigating a drug-trafficking
and money-laundering conspiracy involving several
individuals, including Mr. Garcia. It filed five separate
applications for interception of wire communications during
the course of its investigation. The district court issued
five Orders authorizing each application:
• On August 7, 2015, the first Order was issued
authorizing wiretap surveillance of Target Phone 1 for a
cellular telephone used by Alfonso Pineda-Hernandez, and
Target Phones 2 and 3 for cellular telephones used by Nicolas
• On August 26, 2015, the second Order was issued
authorizing wiretap surveillance of Target Phone 4 for a
cellular telephone used by Mr. Pineda-Hernandez and Target
Phone 5 and 6 for cellular telephones used by Miguel
• On September 4, 2015, the third Order was issued
authorizing an extension of the continued interception of
Target Phones 2 and 3, wiretap surveillance of Target Phone 7
for a cellular telephone used by Mr. Barragan-Lopez, and
wiretap surveillance of Target Phone 8 for a cellular
telephone used by Mr. Pineda-Hernandez.
• The fourth Order was issued on September 28, 2015
authorizing interception of Target Phone 9 for a cellular
telephone used by Mr. Cazares-Garcia, Target Phone 10 for a
cellular telephone used by Aurelio Estrada-Alvarado, and
Target Phone 11 for a cellular telephone used by Mr. Garcia.
• The last Order was issued on October 19, 2015
authorizing interception of Target Phone 12 for a cellular
telephone used by Mr. Pineda-Hernandez and Target Phones 13
and 14 for cellular telephones used by Mr. Garcia.
result of using wiretap surveillance and other investigative
procedures, law enforcement applied for and obtained two
search warrants for two separate Indianapolis addresses. Mr.
Garcia challenges all five applications and district court
Orders, and claims that all evidence seized from the two
properties should be suppressed. [Filing No. 238 at
Mr. Garcia raises three issues, and the Court has
restructured them as follows: 1) the August 7, September 4,
September 28, and October 19, 2015 wiretap
applications do not satisfy the necessity requirement
under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c) that normal investigative
procedures were inadequate, [Filing No. 238 at 10;
Filing No. 238 at 15]; 2) the five Orders
authorizing the wiretap surveillance did not make adequate
findings regarding the inadequacy of using other
investigative procedures, [Filing No. 238 at 5]; and
3) evidence seized from two Indianapolis properties as a
result of the execution of two search warrants triggered by
the contents of the wiretap should be excluded as fruit of
the poisonous tree, [Filing No. 238 at 20]. The
Court will address the issues accordingly.
Garcia claims that each wiretap application fails to provide
a specific factual basis to demonstrate that other forms of
investigative procedures either failed to accomplish the
goals of the investigation or reasonably appeared unlikely to