State v. Hebeishy, State v. Pickett, and State v. Hebeishy & Sadler
State v. Hebeishy, 2022 UT App 134 (Pohlman, J.),
State v. Pickett, 2022 UT App 135 (Pohlman, J.),
State v. Hebeishy & Sadler, 2022 UT App 136 (Pohlman, J.)
Police saw an uptick in activity with juveniles associated with the Titanic Crip Society (TCS), and Officer started reviewing police files on TCS. He then applied for a wiretap warrant of the phones of individuals Officer believed were the leaders of TCS. The district court granted that warrant. After tapping the phones of two leaders, the State charged several individuals. The defendants moved to suppress the evidence found from the wiretap warrant, and after losing the motion, entered conditional pleas. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:
- Wiretap warrants require a government agency to show that the wiretap is necessary because traditional investigative techniques either failed or were futile. Here, Officer gave fact-specific and detailed explanations about the goals of the investigation and the traditional investigative techniques that had failed or would be futile. Thus, the district court correctly determined that Officer complied with the necessity requirement.
- Defendants cannot meet their burden of showing that a Franks hearing was warranted.
- Hebeishy’s statute of limitations, double jeopardy, and single criminal episode statute contentions are further denied.
Read the full court opinion: State v. Hebeish
Read the full court opinion: State v. Pickett
Read the full court opinion: State v. Hebeishy & Sadler