A pen register, which is a device which records numbers called without recording the communication is a device as defined by OCGA 16-11-60 and the state may only use such a device after securing a warrant. Ayres v. State 181 Ga. App. 244, 351 S.E.2d 692. The federal wiretap legislation 18 U.S.C. section 2510, establishes the minimum standards which must be met before wiretap may be used; a state may provide for more stringent or exacting standards. Nondisclosure provision, OCGA 16-11-64 (b)(8) does not require that suppression hearings be closed to the public. Disclosure of the wiretap evidence to an IRS agent does not require suppression of the evidence. The standard for probable cause is the same for search warrants and wiretap warrants. The evidence supplied by the affiant in support of the warrant was sufficient in this case. Sharing wiretap information with other law enforcement agencies does not violate OCGA 16-11-64 (b)(8) which limits the State’s right to publish information obtained from electronic surveillance. Furthermore sucking a call 40 does not involve any interception of wire or oral communication, and thus may be done pursuant to an oral application. Only a person whose conversations were intercepted, or whose phones were wiretapped, has standing to suppress evidence gathered from a wiretap. In this case, the police used sham subpoenas to obtain a defendant’s telephone toll records. If you are looking for a lawyer in Douglas County don’t hesitate to call the law firm of Howard and Arca. We are your in. The sooner you get a lawyer the better off you will be.

Write a comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

© 2015 Howard Law Group | Designed by PressProSites.
Follow us:                        
Call Now Button