§ 29-29.2-02 — Ex parte order for wiretapping and eavesdropping

North Dakota § 29-29.2-02

• Jurisdiction: North Dakota
• Title 29: Judicial Procedure, Criminal
• Ch. 29-29.2: Wiretapping in Drug Offense Investigations

Text

1. An ex parte order for wiretapping or eavesdropping, or both, may be issued by any
judge of competent jurisdiction. The order may be issued upon application of the
attorney general, or an assistant attorney general, or a state's attorney, or an assistant
state's attorney, showing by affidavit that there is probable cause to believe that
evidence will be obtained of the commission or attempted commission of a felony
violation of chapter 19-03.1, or a criminal conspiracy to commit a felony violation of
chapter 19-03.1.
2. Unless otherwise provided by law, an ex parte order for wiretapping or eavesdropping
may be issued only for a crime specified in subsection 1 for which a felony penalty is
authorized upon conviction.
3. Each application for wiretapping or eavesdropping, or both, must be made in writing
upon oath or affirmation to a judge of competent jurisdiction and must state the
applicant's authority to make the application. Each application must include:
a. The identity of the law enforcement officer making the application, and the officer
authorizing the application.
b. A complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the
applicant, to justify the belief that an order should be issued, including details as
to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed; a
particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which, or the
place where, the communication is to be intercepted; a particular description of
the type of communication sought to be intercepted; and the identity of the
person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be
intercepted.
c. A complete statement as to whether other investigative procedures have been
tried and failed, or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried,
or to be too dangerous.
d. A statement of the period of time for which the interception is required to be
maintained. If the nature of the investigation is such that the authorization for
interception should not automatically terminate when the described type of
communication has been first obtained, there must be a particular description of
the facts establishing probable cause to believe that additional communications of
the same type will occur thereafter.
e. A complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications known to
the individual authorizing and making the application, made to any judge for
authorization to intercept, or for approval of interceptions of, wire, electronic, or
oral communications involving any of the same persons, facilities, or places
specified in the application, and the action taken by the judge on each such
application.
f. If the application is for the extension of an order, a statement setting forth the
results thus far obtained from the interception, or a reasonable explanation of the
failure to obtain those results.
4. The judge may require the applicant to furnish additional testimony or documentary
evidence in support of the application.
5. Upon an application, the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or as
modified, authorizing or approving wiretapping or eavesdropping within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting, if the judge determines on the
basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that:

a. There is probable cause for belief that a person is committing, has committed, or
is about to commit a felony violation of chapter 19-03.1 or a criminal conspiracy to
commit a felony violation of chapter 19-03.1;
b. There is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that
offense will be obtained through the interception;
c. Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, or reasonably
appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried, or to be too dangerous; and
d. There is probable cause for belief that the facilities from which or the place where
the wire, electronic, or oral communications are to be intercepted are being used,
or about to be used, in connection with the commission of an offense, or are
leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by the person alleged to be
involved in the commission of the offense.
6. Each order authorizing or approving wiretapping or eavesdropping must specify:
a. The identity of the person, if known, whose communications are to be
intercepted.
b. The nature and location of the communications facilities as to which, or the place
where, authority to intercept is granted.
c. A particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted,
and a statement of the particular offense to which it relates.
d. The identity of the agency authorized to intercept the communications, and of the
person authorizing the application.
e. The period of time during which an interception is authorized, including a
statement as to whether the interception automatically terminates when the
subscribed communication is first obtained.
7. No order entered under this chapter may authorize or approve the interception of any
wire, electronic, or oral communication for any period longer than is necessary to
achieve the objective of the authorization. In no event may the period exceed thirty
days. The thirty-day period begins on the earlier of the day on which the investigative
or law enforcement officer first begins to conduct an interception under the order or ten
days after the order is entered. An extension of an order may be granted, but only
upon application for an extension made in accordance with subsection 3, and to the
court making the findings required by subsection 5. The period of the extension may
be no longer than the authorizing judge deems necessary to achieve the purposes for
which it was granted, and in no event for longer than thirty days. Every order and
extension of an order must contain provisions that the authorization to intercept must
be executed as soon as practicable, must be conducted in such a way as to minimize
the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under this
section, and must terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective, or in any
event in thirty days. No more than one extension may be granted for any order entered
under this section.
8. If an order authorizing interception is entered pursuant to this section, the order may
require reports to be made to the judge who issued the order, showing what progress
has been made toward achievement of the authorized objective and the need for
continued interception. A report must be made at any time the judge requires.
9. a. The contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication intercepted by any
means authorized by this section must, if possible, be recorded on tape, wire, or
other comparable device. The recording of the contents of any wire, electronic, or
oral communication under this subsection must be done in such a way as will
protect the recording from editing or other alterations. Immediately upon
expiration of the period of the order, or extension of the order, the recording must
be made available to the judge issuing the order and sealed under the judge's
directions. The judge shall direct where the recording must be maintained. A
recording may not be destroyed except upon an order of the judge, and in any
event must be kept for ten years. Duplicate recordings may be made for use or
disclosure pursuant to this section. The presence of the seal provided for by this
subsection, or a satisfactory explanation for the absence thereof, is a prerequisite

for the use or disclosure of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral
communication or evidence derived under this section.
b. Applications made and orders granted under this section must be sealed by the
judge. The judge shall direct where applications and orders must be maintained.
The applications and orders may be disclosed only upon a showing of good
cause before a judge of competent jurisdiction, and may not be destroyed except
on order of the judge to whom presented. In any event applications and orders
must be kept for ten years. Information obtained pursuant to a court order
authorizing interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications may not be
used, published, or divulged except in accordance with this chapter.
c. The court may punish violation of this subsection as contempt of court.
10. Within a reasonable time, but not later than ninety days after the termination of the
period of an order or extension thereof, the judge to whom the application was
presented shall cause to be served, on the persons named in the order or the
application, and any other party to intercepted communications as the judge may
determine is in the interest of justice, notice of the following:
a. The fact of the entry of the order.
b. The date of the entry and the period of authorized interception.
c. The fact that during the period wire, electronic, or oral communications were
intercepted.
The judge, upon the filing of a motion, may make available to any person or counsel
for inspection such portions of the intercepted communications, applications, and
orders as the judge determines to be in the interest of justice. On an ex parte showing
of good cause to a judge of competent jurisdiction, the serving of the matter required
by this subsection may be postponed.
11. The contents of any intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication or evidence
derived therefrom may not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial,
hearing, or other proceeding in a court, unless each party, not less than ten days
before the trial, hearing, or proceeding, has been furnished with a copy of the court
order, and accompanying application, under which the interception was authorized or
approved. This ten-day period may be waived by the court if the court finds that it was
not possible to furnish the party with the information ten days before the trial, hearing,
or proceeding, and that the party will not be prejudiced by the delay in receiving this
information.
12. An aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, officer,
agency, or other authority of this state, or a political subdivision of this state, may move
to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication, or
evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully
intercepted, the order of authorization or approval under which it was intercepted is
insufficient on its face, or the interception was not made in conformity with the order of
authorization or approval. This motion must be made before the trial, hearing, or
proceeding unless there was no opportunity to make the motion, or the person was not
aware of the grounds of the motion. If the motion is granted, the contents of the
intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from the
communication may not be received as evidence. The court, upon the filing of the
motion by the aggrieved person, may make available to the aggrieved person or the
person's counsel for inspection any portion of the intercepted communication or
evidence derived from the communication as the court determines to be in the
interests of justice.
13. In addition to any other right to appeal, the state has the right to appeal from an order
granting a motion to suppress made under subsection 12, or the denial of an
application for an order of approval, if the person making or authorizing the application
certifies to the judge granting the motion or denying an application that the appeal is
not taken for purposes of delay. The appeal must be taken within thirty days after the
date the order was entered and must be diligently prosecuted.

14. A law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this section, has obtained
knowledge of the contents of a wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence
derived from the communication, may disclose the contents to another law
enforcement officer to the extent that this disclosure is appropriate in the proper
performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.
15. A law enforcement officer who, by means authorized by this section, has obtained
knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence
derived therefrom, may use those contents to the extent the use is appropriate in the
official performance of official duties.
16. A person who has received, by means authorized by this section, information
concerning a wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from the
communication, intercepted in accordance with this section, may disclose the contents
of that communication or derivative evidence while giving testimony in any proceeding
held under the authority of the United States or this state.
17. No otherwise privileged wire, electronic, or oral communication intercepted in
accordance with, or in violation of, this section loses its privileged character.
18. When a law enforcement officer, while engaged in intercepting wire, electronic, or oral
communications in the manner authorized in this section, intercepts wire, electronic, or
oral communications relating to an offense other than one specified in the order of
authorization or approval, the contents thereof, and evidence derived therefrom, may
be disclosed or used as provided in subsections 14 and 15 only if an offense other
than one specified in the order is an offense that constitutes a felony under the laws of
this state. The contents, and evidence derived from the contents, as authorized by this
section, may be used under subsection 16 only when authorized or approved by a
judge of competent jurisdiction, when the judge finds on subsequent application that
the contents were otherwise intercepted in accordance with this section. This
application must be made as soon as practicable.
19. The requirements of subdivision b of subsection 3 and subdivision d of subsection 5
relating to the specification of the facilities from which, or the place where, the
communication is to be intercepted do not apply if:
a. In the case of an application with respect to the interception of an oral
communication, the application contains a full and complete statement as to why
such specification is not practical and identifies the person committing the offense
and whose communications are to be intercepted and the judge finds that such
specification is not practical; or
b. In the case of an application with respect to a wire or electronic communication,
the application identifies the person believed to be committing the offense and
whose communications are to be intercepted and the applicant makes a showing
of a purpose, on the part of that person, to thwart interception by changing
facilities and the judge finds that such purpose has been adequately shown.
20. An interception of a communication under an order with respect to which the
requirements of subdivision b of subsection 3 and subdivision d of subsection 5 do not
apply by reason of subsection 19 may not begin until the facilities from which, or the
place where, the communication is to be intercepted is ascertained by the person
implementing the interception order. A provider of wire or electronic communication
service which has received an order as provided for in subdivision b of subsection 19
may move the court to modify or quash the order on the ground that its assistance with
respect to the interception cannot be performed in a timely or reasonable fashion. The
court, upon notice to the government, shall rule on such a motion expeditiously.