DA defends wiretapping

District Attorney John Newsome calls methamphetamine Public Enemy No. 1.

So he has no reservations about using everything in his arsenal to fight it, including wiretaps.

In 2005 and 2006, the 4th Judicial District, which encompasses El Paso and Teller counties, has led Colorado in eavesdropping on suspects’ phone conversations, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

“It is a legal tool, and I intend to use it,” said El Paso County’s top law enforcement officer.

Newsome’s aggressive use of wiretaps worries some who say he could do more harm than good.

“They should be used sparingly,” said defense attorney Dennis Hartley. “I’ve seen legally justifiable wiretaps. My problem is when wiretaps are used and abused on those who are not a reasonable target of criminal activity.”

Newsome says his work is paying off: Wiretaps have helped get $12 million worth of drugs and guns off the streets in his district in the past two years.

That includes Carlos Ornelas-Espinoza, who was sentenced in June for distributing drugs in El Paso County. He was part of a large drug ring in which illegal immigrants used elementary school-age children to interpret negotiations of drug deals. According to the District Attorney’s Office, investigators used wiretaps, surveillance and interviews to determine Ornelas-Espinoza was a high-ranking man in the drug ring.

“Methamphetamine is the scourge of the community,” Newsome said. “It’s destroying families. People will do anything for it once they become addicted. And I think any cop, judge and defense attorney will tell you the same thing.”

Last year, the District Attorney’s Office had 24 wiretaps authorized, more than any other county in the state. Second was Denver County, which had seven.

In 2005, the year that Newsome took office, there were 11 wiretaps authorized in El Paso County.

The majority of the wiretaps in the county in both years were for narcotics cases.

Newsome said cooperation from federal law enforcement agencies is crucial. In 2005, his office and the Drug Enforcement Administration teamed up on drug trafficking investigations.

Since then, prosecutors from around Colorado and other states have sought out Newsome and the DEA office in Colorado Springs for information on why the partnership is so successful and how they can benefit from wiretaps.

“What is unique about El Paso County is that you have an active federal presence here,” Newsome said. “But while the federal government has the equipment, what they don’t have is prosecutors. I have prosecutors, but I lack the equipment.”

Investigators from both agencies work together to gather information. The district attorney presents that information to a judge for authorization for a bug. DEA officials monitor the phone lines in a 15-by-15 room in their Colorado Springs office.

“When people talk to us about our model, where it stops is the DA, because they’re not willing to give up their resources,” said Al Laurita, special agent in charge at the DEA’s Colorado Springs office. “His dedication to it is beyond reproach, in any state or federal agency.”

Other key elements are money and time. An investigation can take weeks, even months, and the request must comply with stringent requirements in state law. Newsome said it can take him up to a week to review a wiretap request before he can present it to a judge. Last year, the average cost per wiretap in El Paso County was approximately $19,000.

“Plus you have the cost of keeping up with technology, paying the monitors, the law enforcement officers and administration to process the paperwork,” Laurita said.

“It’s a long, complicated process. I think that’s why Colorado law was drafted in that way, and for good reason,” said Newsome. He and other prosecutors agree the law ensures the public that wiretaps aren’t being granted too freely.

“(Wiretaps) are so invasive. The judges want to make sure that there’s people dealing, but they also want to make sure that they’re using their phones to do it,” said Dan Rubinstein, the 21st Judicial District attorney’s chief deputy in charge of the office’s drug unit.

But opponents of wiretaps say officials have been wrong, and innocent people have had their privacy compromised.

In 35 years of practice, Hartley said he has seen reasonable and unreasonable wiretaps. Hartley said a client he represented in U.S. District Court had his phone conversations — including those to his family — monitored by authorities before it was discovered that the wiretap was wrongly authorized. The case was dismissed, he said.

Hartley said he wonders if authorities are doing all they can to avoid using such an intrusive tool, and he questions such a high gap between the amount of wiretap authorizations in El Paso County compared to others in Colorado.

“It makes me question how (the applications) were written up,” he said. “Are we using it in a prudent manner? As a last resort if we have a legitimate investigation here?

“Just because it’s a legal tool does not make a good tool.”

Authorities maintain they take great care in following the law.

At the DEA’s call-monitoring room in Colorado Springs, computer monitors alert investigators when a call comes in.

On one occasion, a woman dons headphones and starts typing furiously. But she abruptly stops, takes off the headphones and walks away from the screen — the suspected dealer was making a personal call.

“We only listen to calls that are pertinent to the investigation as specified in the authorization,” Laurita said. “If it’s a drug call, we’ll listen.”

Newsome said detractors don’t understand the link between methamphetamine and the crimes addicts commit to feed their habits — burglary, identity theft, assault and even murder.

“I’ve been criticized for getting into this area,” he said, “but ... I don’t ever want to see El Paso County as a drug distribution center.”

CONTACT THE WRITER: 476-4813 or kim.nguyen@gazette.com

PAST FIGURES

A look at wiretaps authorized in Colorado in the past five years:

2006

El Paso County: 24

Denver County: 7

Mesa County: 6

Jefferson County: 4

Garfield, Pitkin, Rio Blanco counties: 2

2005

El Paso County: 11

Denver County: 1

2004

none

2003

Denver County: 1

Weld County: 1

2002

none

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS