LOS ROVELL DAHDA v. UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of the United States, Breyer, May 14, 2018,
Wiretap Law – A federal Wiretap Order is not “insufficient on its face” just because one sentence purports to authorize wiretaps outside of its jurisdiction.
Facts:
In 2011, the Government was investigating a drug ring operating in Kansas.
It submitted nine wiretap orders to a judge for the US District Court for the District of Kansas. The order signed by the judge included a sentence that said: “it is further Ordered that, in the event TARGET TELEPHONE #1, TARGET TELEPHONE #3 and TARGET TELEPHONE #4, are transported outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, interception may take place in any other jurisdiction within the United States.”
The judge approved these orders.
Investigators, working from a listening post in Kansas, overheard numerous conversations.
Dahda and others were eventually indicted and moved to have the wiretap evidence suppressed on the ground that the order was “insufficient on its face” because it purported to authorize wiretap intercepts outside of the judge’s jurisdiction.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the order had all of the information it needed and therefore was not “insufficient on its face.” The extra sentence didn’t make the order “insufficient,” so the evidence should not be suppressed.
Wiretap – Exclusion – Violation of federal wiretap law may result in suppression of the contents of the wiretap if:
– The wiretap itself was illegal
– The wiretap order was “insufficient on its face”
– OR the interception was not made according to the terms of the wiretap order
Wiretap – Requirements – A Wiretap Order must include the following information:
– the identity of the target (if known)
– the nature and location of where the intercept is to occur
– a particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted
– a statement of the particular offense to which the intercept relates
– the identity of the agency authorized to intercept the communications
– the identity of the person authorizing the application
– the period of time where the intercept is to occur
– and a statement about whether or not the intercept will automatically terminate once the described communication is first obtained
Wiretap – A wiretap is “insufficient on its face” if it lacks any of this information
Wiretap – In deciding whether a Wiretap Order is “insufficient on its face,” the court should remove any improper language and then decide if the order still contains all of the requirements listed above.
From the Case: Because, once you take out the extra language from these orders, “the remainder of each Order was itself legally sufficient, we conclude that the Orders were not ‘insufficient’ on their ‘face.'”