§ 35-33.5-2-1 — Application for warrant by prosecuting or designated deputy prosecuting attorney; coapplicant; interception equipment under control of state police; reimbursement to state police

Indiana § 35-33.5-2-1

• Jurisdiction: Indiana
• Art. 33.5: INTERCEPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR
• Ch. 2: Applications, Procedures, and Reports

Text

(a) A prosecuting attorney or, if the
prosecuting attorney is unavailable, a chief deputy prosecuting attorney
specifically authorized by the prosecuting attorney, may submit an
application for a warrant or an extension to a circuit or superior court
where:
(1) the county that the prosecuting attorney represents is located;
and
(2) the communication subject to the warrant is anticipated to be
sent or received.
The prosecuting attorney or authorized chief deputy prosecuting
attorney may not delegate the responsibility of applying for a warrant
or an extension to another deputy prosecuting attorney.
(b) One (1) of the following persons must serve as a coapplicant for
a warrant or an extension under subsection (a):
(1) The superintendent of the state police department.
(2) The police chief of a consolidated city where the
communication subject to the warrant is anticipated to be sent or
received.
(3) The sheriff of the county containing a consolidated city where
the communication subject to the warrant is anticipated to be sent
or received.
(c) Only the state police department may install equipment used to
intercept an electronic communication under this chapter.
(d) The state police department may:
(1) operate or monitor equipment used to intercept an electronic
communication; or
(2) if the interception of an electronic communication is
performed on behalf of another law enforcement agency, permit
the law enforcement agency to operate or monitor the equipment
under the supervision of the department.
(e) The superintendent of the state police department may terminate
an interception under this chapter if the superintendent of the state
police department determines that there is probable cause to believe
that the allegations concerning the offense that are the basis of the
interception are without merit. If an interception of an electronic
communication is terminated under this subsection, the law
enforcement agency that is the co-applicant for the interception shall
reimburse the state police department for the department's expenses
incurred in connection with the application for interception, including
the costs of removing equipment related to the interception.
(f) If the interception of an electronic communication is performed
on behalf of another law enforcement agency, the law enforcement
agency shall reimburse the department for the department's expenses
in connection with the installation, operation, and maintenance of
equipment used to intercept an electronic communication.

Legislative History

As added by P.L.161-1990, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.105-2007, SEC.6.