Dahda v. United States

A wiretap order is not facially insufficient if it includes the information required by 18 U. S. C. §2518, even if the order exceeds its proper territorial jurisdiction.

Petitioners were indicted for their participation in an unlawful drug distribution conspiracy. Evidence was obtained through a wiretap order in which the district court judge authorized interception of communication occurring within—as well as outside—the judge’s jurisdiction. Petitioners moved to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the wiretap order, arguing that the order was “insufficient on its face” under 18 U. S. C. §2518 (10)(a)(ii) due to its jurisdictional defect. The Tenth Circuit sided with the Government by applying the “core concerns” test from United States v. Giordano. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, but found that the “core concerns” test only applies to subparagraph (i), which concerns unlawfully intercepted communication. The Supreme Court pointed out that the Government did not introduce evidence of intercepted communications that occurred outside the proper jurisdiction, so the evidence could not be suppressed under subparagraph (i). The Supreme Court stated that subparagraph (ii) only requires courts to determine whether the defect in the wiretap order renders it “insufficient.” The Supreme Court found that if the sentence authorizing interceptions outside the jurisdiction was removed, the order would properly authorize wiretaps within the court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the wiretap order was not insufficient under subparagraph (ii) and Petitioner’s motion to suppress was properly denied. AFFIRMED.