Staffeldt

United States v. Staffeldt

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 26, 200605-10243California3,367 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. Background

A. The Application, Authorization, and Approval Process for Wiretaps

Title III, as amended (codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522), contains strict controls governing the issuance of wiretap war- rants, and the use of wiretaps, in criminal investigations. Because Congress recognized the grave threat to privacy that wiretaps pose, it spelled out “in elaborate and generally restrictive detail” the process by which wiretaps may be applied for and authorized. United States v. King, 478 F.2d 494, 498 (9th Cir. 1973). It did so in order to insure that wire- taps are limited “to those situations clearly calling for the employment of this extraordinary investigative device.” United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 527-28 (1974). The 7088 UNITED STATES v. STAFFELDT statutory scheme created by Congress relies on a uniquely rig- orous bifurcated system of authorization involving review and approval by both the executive and judicial branches. The Supreme Court has explained that this system evinces Con- gress’s “clear intent to make doubly sure that the statutory authority be used with restraint and only where the circum- stances warrant the surreptitious…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.