State v. Harris

The Wiretap Act requires a “principal prosecuting attorney” to authorize wiretaps and it prohibits courts from admitting evidence collected from a wiretap in violation of the act. 18 USC §§ 2515 - 2516.

State appealed the pretrial orders to suppress evidence collected from wiretaps that had beenauthorized by the deputy district attorney. State assigned error to the court’s conclusion that the statute precludes the delegation of wiretap authorization duties. State argued because federal law is silent on wiretap authorization delegation, it is not prohibited. In the alternative, if delegation is prohibited, then the officers used good faith reliance and the evidence should not be suppressed. Defendant argued federal law prohibits the wiretap authorization delegation because the deputy district attorney authorized the wiretap. Therefore, the deputy district attorney violated the statute and the wiretap was not valid. The Wiretap Act requires a “principal prosecuting attorney” to authorize wiretaps and it prohibits courts from admitting evidence collected from a wiretap in violation of the act. 18 USC §§ 2515 - 2516. The Court reasoned there is no consensus regarding authorization delegations, but the legislative intent of the original statute was to limit the authority to the highest-ranking officials. Further, the Court reasoned Giordano established that if a wiretap is statutorily deficient in any way, the evidence from it should be suppressed despite good faith reliance. The deputy district attorney is not the “principal prosecuting attorney.” Therefore, the wiretap was invalid and evidence from it should be suppressed. Affirmed.