The evidence used to support the issuance of a federal wiretap failed to meet the statutory requirements, and thus the evidence obtained via the wiretap was properly suppressed. The government appealed the granting of the motion to suppress, arguing at the outset that the court had erred in holding a hearing under Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154. The reviewing court disagreed, noting that the defendant was only required to make an offer of proof regarding misstatements and misrepresentations, and the fact that the district court decided after the hearing that no violation had occurred did not mean that it was error to hold the hearing in the first place. The Ninth Circuit next held that the district court had properly found that necessity for the wiretap had not been established, as the government had not overcome the statutory presumptions against the use of wiretaps by showing that normal investigative procedures had been fully utilized or were dangerous or unlikely to succeed. Finally, the court found that the defendants had standing to challenge the wiretaps, as they owned the premises where the wiretapping occurred and had significant day-to-day control over the business operations there.