Order for interception of communications
- application
- grounds for issuance
- contents of order
- progress reports
Source:
Section 133.724 — Order for interception of communications; application; grounds for issuance; contents of order; progress reports, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors133.html
.
See also annotations under ORS 141.720 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Oregon courts must require strict compliance with all statutory requirements leading to issuance of wiretap order. State v. Pottle, 296 Or 274, 677 P2d 1 (1984)
Wiretap was justified by inadequacy of normal investigatory procedures where witnesses to defendant’s confession were vulnerable to impeachment and defendant’s statements were inconsistent. State v. Oslund, 71 Or App 701, 693 P2d 1354 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Legislature did not intend this section to prohibit police from recording telephone conversation when one participant has consented to recording. State v. Lissy, 85 Or App 484, 737 P2d 617 (1987), aff’d 304 Or 455, 747 P2d 345 (1987)
Wiretap application failed to set forth facts sufficient to show that normal available investigative techniques were tried in good faith and failed before wiretap order was issued. State v. Stockfleth/Lassen, 311 Or 40, 804 P2d 471 (1991)
Where first order for wiretap was found to be invalid under this section, and application for second order relied upon results of first wiretap, conversations seized under the second order were suppressed as evidence derived from illegal first order. State v. Stockfleth/Lassen, 311 Or 40, 804 P2d 471 (1991)
ORS 165.540 provision allowing police to obtain certain conversations upon existence of probable cause or exigent circumstances does not make conversations obtained without court order admissible. State v. Fleetwood, 331 Or 511, 16 P3d 503 (2000)