Search & seizure; Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control & Safe Streets Act (interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications); 18 USC § 2518(10)(a)(i); Standing for a motion to suppress evidence; “Aggrieved person” (§ 2510(11)); Waiver or forfeiture of an argument

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.]. The court held that defendant-Liggins did not have standing for his motion to suppress evidence based on an improperly obtained Arizona wiretap where he was not an “aggrieved person” under Title III. A jury convicted him of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute illegal narcotics (including at least 100 grams of heroin) and aiding and abetting another person in possessing with the intent to distribute at least 100 grams of heroin at his first trial. On remand for a new trial, he moved to suppress cash, heroin, and testimony on the basis the wiretap obtained by the Arizona officers to monitor another individual’s communications violated the federal wiretap laws. After his motion was denied, he conditionally pled guilty, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The government did “not dispute that Arizona authorities violated Title III’s procedures when they obtained a wiretap order.” Title III allows an “aggrieved person” to move to suppress an illegally intercepted communication’s contents or evidence derived from it. The issue was whether Liggins qualified as an aggrieved person. The court first rejected his claim that the government waived or forfeited the argument that he did not, holding that it had issued a “general remand in the first appeal” that reopened “all issues for a fresh round of proceedings before a new judge.” Additionally, the court concluded the government did not waive or forfeit anything. Turning to the merits, it considered whether Liggins qualified as an “aggrieved person” under §§ 2510(11). It noted that “circuit courts have split over the meaning of this definition.” It concluded that it did not need to “choose between the competing legal approaches because Liggins would not qualify as an ‘aggrieved person’ under any view.” It noted he “did not ‘participate[]’ in the calls[,]” and no evidence suggested that they “took place ‘on his premises’ or that they used his cellphones.” In addition, “nothing in the wiretap application, order, or anything else suggested that Liggins was one of the ‘targets’ of the investigation.” Affirmed.