Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge’s territorial jurisdiction.The wiretap orders in Dahda authorized the interception of communication outside of Kansas, beyond the issuing magistrate's jurisdiction. Trial counsel unsuccessfully moved to suppress the wiretap evidence.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with the district court and found that the T-3 order was facially insufficient as it authorized interception of communication outside of the court's jurisdiction. But the Circuit still refused to grant relief. Instead, the Tenth Circuit read into the statute another condition: a facially insufficient order must implicate "core concerns" of Title 3--privacy and uniformity--to justify suppressing the evidence.
The circuits are divided on this extra-statutory condition. The statute says nothing about core concerns or exceptions to the statutory suppression remedy. The Tenth Circuit decision is here.
The cert petition, filed by counsel of record at Williams & Connolly LLP in D.C., is here. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.