https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.293128/gov.uscourts.mied.293128.161.0.pdf



requirement.
Silski’s affidavit begins by describing the offenses being investigated, including 18 U.S.C. § 1084, which makes it illegal for a person “engaged in the business of betting or wagering” to “knowingly use[] a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest...” 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a); Aff. at ¶3. The affidavit identifies the persons whose communications are being sought, two of whom – Thomas Mackey and Kenneth Green – are defendants in this case. Aff. at ¶¶2-3. The affidavit spends about two pages describing “The Detroit La Cosa Nostra,” which information the Defendants argue was improperly included “to create some mystique of dangerousness and divert attention from [Silski’s] obligation to overcome the statutory presumption against wiretapping.” Id. at ¶¶11-13. While the three paragraphs related to the Detroit La Cosa Nostra Family may not contain the most germane information in the affidavit, they far from unfairly tainted it. Indeed, one of the affidavit’s targets is identified as a member (who holds the rank of capo) of the Detroit La Cosa Nostra Family, Aff. at ¶¶12, 20, and later in the affidavit, Silski avers that “all of the informants [with whom agents spoke] have stated that they are afraid of bodily harm to either themselves or members of their families if their identities are revealed.” Id. at ¶150; see also infra at 8. The affidavit contains other factual references linking the Detroit La Cosa Nostra Family to one of the targets and target offenses. E.g., Aff. at ¶28.
5

2:14-cr-20417-VAR-DRG Doc # 161 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 6 of 15 Pg ID 593
The affidavit then discusses various alternative forms of investigative techniques to wire intercepts. First, the affidavit discusses the information received from four confidential human sources (“CHS”), identified as FBI-1, 2, 3 and 4, and an informant identified by name. Aff. at ¶¶25-69. Generally speaking, the affidavit recounts information provided by the five individuals which link the targets of the investigation to the target offenses. Id. FBI-1 reported to Silski that he “witnessed [Defendant] Mackey take bets on [one of the target telephones],” and that even though “most bettors place bets on websites utilized by their bookmaker, [they] still need to telephonically contact bookmakers to either raise their credit limit on the website, or place a bet on a sport they typically do not bet on.” Id. at ¶41.
Silski’s affidavit then described physical surveillance which had taken place, much of which was from a 2007-2010 undercover investigation conducted by the Eastpointe Police Department. Id. at ¶¶70-89. The undercover officer (“UCO”) reported that Mackey agreed to serve as his bookie, and instructed the UCO as to how bets were to be made. Id. at ¶70. Mackey provided the UCO with his own telephone number, as well as two numbers for an associate of his, Ronald Yourofsky, who died two years into the undercover investigation. Id. at ¶¶70-74.
Silski’s affidavit next described the use of telephone toll and pen register information in the investigation. Id. at ¶¶90-122. The information showed numerous calls between the targets of the investigation and the target telephones, and an increase in the volume of those calls around major sporting events. Id. at ¶¶90-92, 113-117.
Finally, Silski listed approximately 20 prior authorized wiretaps (including extensions) for many of the same persons who are identified in Special Agent Silski’s instant affidavit. Id. at ¶¶124-144. Silski averred that monitoring of those wiretaps had ceased as of the date of his affidavit. Id. at ¶145.
6

2:14-cr-20417-VAR-DRG Doc # 161 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 7 of 15 Pg ID 594
Silski’s affidavit then made a proffer regarding the “unavailability of alternative investigative techniques.” Id. at ¶¶149-161. It is this section that forms the basis for the bulk of Defendants’ arguments, including that: (1) “[m]any of [Silski’s] conclusions [regarding unavailability] are not predicated upon specific, documented facts but rather on [his and other unnamed agents’] ‘experience’ ...” and on purported “self-serving prognostication”; (2) Silski “undermines his own claim [by referencing a] lengthy list of potential witnesses” throughout his affidavit; and (3) Silski improperly suggested that undercover operations would not be successful when they previously had been utilized with some success.
The Court will address these arguments in turn, but it should be clear that it does so in light of the binding legal authority and standards described above. Supra at 3-4. Thus, the Court’s task is not to determine whether Silski’s affidavit showed a complete “exhaustion” of all other potential investigative techniques, but rather, whether, giving proper deference to the issuing judge’s determination, it is supported by a showing that “the investigators [gave] serious consideration to the non-wiretap techniques prior to applying for wiretap authority and that the court [was] informed of the reasons for the investigators’ belief that such non-wiretap techniques have been or will likely be inadequate.” Lambert, 771 F.2d at 91.
Turning to Defendants’ specific arguments, the Court finds that they lack merit. First, although it is true that Silski relies on his (and his colleagues’) “experience” in investigating the types of alleged illegal operations described in his affidavit, e.g., Aff. at ¶¶ 153, his conclusions regarding the unavailability and ineffectiveness of non-wire tap investigation methods are far from conclusory “self-serving prognostications.” Rather, Silski supported his conclusions with specific information and details. Silski’s discussion of his conclusion that attempting to infiltrate Defendant Mackey’s alleged operation would be ineffective is a good example. Far from simply
7

2:14-cr-20417-VAR-DRG Doc # 161 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 8 of 15 Pg ID 595
referring to his own general “experience,” Silski referenced “the clandestine nature by which the subjects conduct their activities, the close-knit relationship of the participants, and their distrust of strangers.” Aff. at ¶153. Silski stated that although the “Detroit Division of the FBI has attempted to infiltrate gambling houses in the Detroit area; this technique will not assist in the infiltration of an illegal sports bookmaking operation, which is usually conducted by telephone and computers.” Id.5 And, while Silski stated that the Eastpointe Police Department “had some success placing wagers with Mackey’s bookmaking operation,” he noted that the undercover operation failed to uncover the scope of Mackey’s operation.” Id. (emphasis added). Silski also averred that, “All of the CHS’s referred to [in his affidavit] have stated that even if immunized from prosecution and given protective custody, they would be unwilling to testify concerning [the targets and target offenses]. Furthermore, all of the informants have stated that they are afraid of bodily harm to either themselves or members of their families if their identities are revealed.” Id. at ¶150. The affidavit provides other concrete information that is consistent with the fears expressed by the CHS’s; when the UCO reported to Defendant Mackey that he was having difficulty collecting money from another bettor who owed money to Mackey, Mackey asked the UCO, “Why don’t you go ball bat him,” which Silski interpreted as “encouraging the UCO to engage in an act of violence, or threaten an act of violence, with a baseball bat to obtain the money owed to Mackey...” Id. at ¶76.6 In sum, far from being mere “self-serving

The fbi obviously considers the family active and still around as well as the available evidence in this case...

Noticed the name Milazzo in the list of defendants. That name goes way back to the 30's in Detroit lcn. Specifically, the east side.

Detroit family still has close ties to terrasini and partinico in Sicily.