State v. Pickett

2022 UT App 135
THE UTAH C OURT OF APPEALS
S TATE OF U TAH ,
Appellee,
v.
BROCK A DAM PICKETT,
Appellant.
Opinion
No. 20200198-CA
Filed December 8, 2022
Second District Court, Ogden Department
The Honorable Ernest W. Jones
No. 161901271
Emily Adams and Benjamin Miller, Attorneys
for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and Jeffrey D. Mann, Attorneys
for Appellee
JUSTICE JILL M. POHLMAN authored this Opinion, in which JUDGE
GREGORY K. O RME and JUSTICE DIANA H AGEN concurred.1
POHLMAN, Justice:
¶1 	This is a companion case to and arises out of the same facts
involved in State v. Sadat Hebeishy, 2022 UT App 134, and State v.
Tamer Hebeishy, 2022 UT App 136, both of which also issue today.
1. Justices Jill M. Pohlman and Diana Hagen began their work on
this case as members of the Utah Court of Appeals. They both
became members of the Utah Supreme Court thereafter and
completed their work on this case sitting by special assignment as
authorized by law. See generally Utah R. Jud. Admin. 3-108(4).

State v. Pickett
20200198-CA 	2 	2022 UT App 135
In short,2 Brock Adam Pickett was identified by law enforcement
as a member of the Titanic Crip Society (TCS), a criminal street
gang in Weber County, Utah. As part of its investigation of TCS,
law enforcement received authorization from the district court to
conduct wiretaps of mobile phones belonging to two of Pickett’s
gang associates—Tamer and Sadat Hebeishy. Based on evidence
obtained from those wiretaps, the State charged Pickett with
pattern of unlawful activity and aggravated assault, both with
gang enhancements.
¶2 	Before trial, Pickett filed a motion to suppress the evidence
obtained through the wiretaps, arguing that the applications
seeking 	the 	wiretap 	orders 	failed 	to 	meet 	the 	necessity
requirement of section 77-23a-10(1)(c) of Utah’s Interception of
Communications Act (the Act).3 See generally Utah Code Ann.
§§ 77-23a-1 to -16 (LexisNexis 2017 & Supp. 2022). After briefing
and 	oral 	argument, 	the 	district 	court 	denied 	the 	motion,
concluding that law enforcement had satisfied the Act’s necessity
requirement. Pickett later entered a conditional guilty plea to one
2. A more fulsome description of the relevant facts and procedural
history can be found in State v. Sadat Hebeishy, 2022 UT App 134.
3. The Act allows any “aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or
proceeding in or before any court” to move to suppress an
unlawfully intercepted communication. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-
23a-10(11)(a) (LexisNexis 2017). An “aggrieved person” is defined
in the Act as “a person who was a party to any intercepted wire,
electronic, or oral communication, or a person against whom the
interception was directed.” Id. § 77-23a-3(1). The State does not
contest Pickett’s standing to challenge the wiretaps on Tamer
Hebeishy’s 	and 	Sadat 	Hebeishy’s 	mobile 	phones. 	Thus, 	we
assume that Pickett is an “aggrieved person” under the Act for the
purpose of both wiretaps.

State v. Pickett
20200198-CA 	3 	2022 UT App 135
count of aggravated assault, reserving his right to appeal the
court’s denial of his motion to suppress.
¶3 	Pickett now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in
concluding 	that 	the 	wiretap 	applications 	satisfied 	the 	Act’s
necessity requirement. This appeal presents materially identical
facts and the same issue of law that were presented in State v.
Sadat Hebeishy, 2022 UT App 134, with which this appeal was
argued. For the reasons set forth in that opinion, we affirm.