Fresno Wiretaps & Electronic Surveillance Lawyer

Seasoned Federal & State Criminal Defense Representation

Marc Days has experience in cases involving the interception of communications pursuant to wiretap orders and has successfully suppressed such evidence and the fruit derived therefrom. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §2510 et seq., prohibits the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications except under carefully defined circumstances.

Title III was enacted to provide greater protection than that mandated by the Constitution. 18 U.S.C. §2515 provides that no part of an intercepted communication, and no evidence derived therefrom, may be received into evidence at any trial, hearing, or other proceeding “if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.”

Title III requires strict compliance. For example, a communication is “unlawfully intercepted” and requires suppression, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2515 and §2518(10)(a), if the application for the wiretap order fails to establish probable cause, provide a full and complete statement of the facts, and establish necessity as required by 18 U.S.C. §2518(1) and (3).

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the words “lawfully intercepted” are not limited to constitutional violations and that Congress intended to require suppression where there is a failure to satisfy any of Title III’s requirements that directly and substantially implement Congress’ intent to limit the use of incept procedures to those situations that clearly call for the employment of this extraordinary investigative device. United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 527 (1974).

If you have been subjected to illegal wiretapping or electronic surveillance, Days Law Firm can help. We can leverage our considerable experience in fighting cases involving federal and state wiretaps and electronic surveillance to raise an aggressive defense and negotiate when it is optimum.