Additionally, the affidavits state that beginning April 5, 2017, Minori expressed his intention to go to Pittsfield, Massachusetts -- where Hodges' operation was based -- to purchase heroin rather than resupplying in Newburgh, New York as he previously had done. This information supported the motion judge's finding of probable cause to believe that a drug link existed between Hodges and Minori. See Commonwealth v. Wallace, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 247, 249 (1986) ("Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within . . . [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed" [quotation and citation omitted]). Where Addendum A linked Hodges to Minori, Addenda B and C linked Jessamy to Minori through Hodges, as well as by Jessamy's own activities.

While a wiretap warrant can only be issued upon a showing of probable cause, "the probable cause required for an electronic surveillance search is no different from that which is necessary to obtain a warrant for a physical search." Commonwealth v. Wallace, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 247, 248 (1986) (rev. denied 398 Mass. 1101 (1986)). The facts as set forth within the four corners of the affidavit and the reasonable inferences therefrom must be sufficient to establish probable cause.Commonwealth v. Allen, 406 Mass. 575, 578 (1990).

Instead, Massachusetts courts consultfederal law in ruling on violations of minimization orders. See,e.g., Commonwealth v. Vitello, 327 N.E.2d 819, 842 n. 22 (Mass. 1975); Commonwealth v. Wallace, 493 N.E.2d 216, 221 n. 10 (Mass.App.Ct. 1986). This case is no exception: the state court expressly relied on federal case law in determining the appropriate remedy for the violation of the minimization order.

18 U.S.C. § 2518 (1)(c) (1990). See Commonwealth v. Vitello, 367 Mass. 224, 259 (1975); Commonwealth v. Wallace, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 247, 248 n. 2 (1986). In meeting its statutory burden of establishing necessity, "[t]he Commonwealth need not show that traditional investigative techniques were wholly unsuccessful or that the police had exhausted all other investigative procedures before filing its application for a warrant authorizing a wiretap."

In any event, "[i]nnocent explanations ... do not vitiate the existence of probable cause where there is a reasonable probability that criminal activity is afoot." Commonwealth v. Wallace, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 247, 250, 493 N.E.2d 216 (1986). See Diaz-Arias, 98 Mass. App. Ct. at 510, 157 N.E.3d 616 ("While one might imagine an innocent explanation for the observed behavior, one does not have to indulge the innocent explanations in evaluating probable cause").

Commonwealth v. Conway, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 738, 739 (1980). There is sufficient material to make reasonable and solid inferences about when the defendants and premises were observed. See Commonwealth v. Wallace, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 247, 250 (1986). Those observations are sufficiently close in time to the issuance of the affidavit and the search made the same day.