INTERCEPTION ORDER FOR COMMUNICATION BY SPECIFIED PERSON
REQUIREMENTS REGARDING INTERCEPTION ORDER FOR COMMUNICATION BY SPECIFIED PERSON.
The requirements relating to the specification of the facilities from which or the place where a communication is to be intercepted do not apply if in the case of an application for an interception order that authorizes the interception of an oral communication: the application contains a complete statement as to why the specification is not practical and identifies the person committing or believed to be committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted; and a judge of competent jurisdiction finds that the specification is not practical.
In the case of an application for an interception order that authorizes the interception of a wire or electronic communication the application identifies the person committing or believed to be committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted; a judge of competent jurisdiction finds that the prosecutor has made an adequate showing of probable cause to believe that the actions of the person identified in the application could have the effect of preventing interception from a specified facility; and the authority to intercept a wire or electronic communication under the interception order is limited to a period in which it is reasonable to presume that the person identified in the application will be reasonably proximate to the interception device.
IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERCEPTION ORDER.
A person implementing an interception order that authorizes the interception of an oral communication and that, as permitted by this subchapter, does not specify the facility from which or the place where a communication is to be intercepted may begin interception only after the person ascertains the place where the communication is to be intercepted.
MOTION TO MODIFY OR QUASH INTERCEPTION ORDER.
A provider of a wire or electronic communications service that receives an interception order that authorizes the interception of a wire or electronic communication and that, as permitted by this subchapter, does not specify the facility from which or the place where a communication is to be intercepted may move the court to modify or quash the order on the ground that the service provider’s assistance with respect to the interception cannot be performed in a timely or reasonable manner. On notice to the state, the court shall decide the motion expeditiously.
EMERGENCY INSTALLATION AND USE OF INTERCEPTION DEVICE
DEFINITIONS.
“Immediate life-threatening situation” means a hostage, barricade, or other emergency situation in which a person unlawfully and directly threatens another with death; or exposes another to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.
“Member of a law enforcement unit specially trained to respond to and deal with life-threatening situations” means a peace officer who, as evidenced by the submission of appropriate documentation to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement receives each year a minimum of 40 hours of training in hostage and barricade suspect situations; or has received a minimum of 24 hours of training on kidnapping investigations and is the sheriff of a county with a population of 3.3 million or more or the sheriff’s designee; or the police chief of a police department in a municipality with a population of 500,000 or more or the chief’s designee.
POSSESSION AND USE OF INTERCEPTION DEVICE IN EMERGENCY SITUATION.
The prosecutor in a county in which an interception device is to be installed or used shall designate in writing each peace officer in the county, other than a commissioned officer of the department, who is:
– a member of a law enforcement unit specially trained to respond to and deal with life-threatening situations; and
– authorized to possess an interception device and responsible for the installation, operation, and monitoring of the device in an immediate life-threatening situation.
A peace officer may possess, install, operate, or monitor an interception device if the officer:
– reasonably believes an immediate life-threatening situation exists that:
– is within the territorial jurisdiction of the officer or another officer the officer is assisting; and
– requires interception of communications before an interception order can, with due diligence, be obtained under this subchapter;
– reasonably believes there are sufficient grounds under this subchapter on which to obtain an interception order; and
– before beginning the interception, obtains oral or written consent to the interception from:
– a judge of competent jurisdiction;
– a district judge for the county in which the device will be installed or used; or
– a judge or justice of a court of appeals or of a higher court.
If a peace officer installs or uses an interception device under Subsection (b), the officer shall:
– promptly report the installation or use to the prosecutor in the county in which the device is installed or used; and
– within 48 hours after the installation is complete or the interception begins, whichever occurs first, obtain a written interception order from a judge of competent jurisdiction.
– A peace officer may certify to a communication common carrier that the officer is acting lawfully under this subchapter.
CONSENT FOR EMERGENCY INTERCEPTION.
An official may give oral or written consent to the interception of communications to provide evidence of the commission of a felony, or of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy to commit a felony, in an immediate life-threatening situation.
Oral or written consent given under this subchapter expires on the earlier of:
– 48 hours after the grant of consent; or
– the conclusion of the emergency justifying the interception.
WRITTEN ORDER AUTHORIZING INTERCEPTION.
A judge of competent jurisdiction may issue a written interception order during the 48-hour period. A written interception order expires on the earlier of:
– the 30th day after the date of execution of the order; or
– the conclusion of the emergency that initially justified the interception.
If an interception order is denied or is not issued within the 48-hour period, the officer shall terminate use of and remove the interception device promptly on the earlier of:
– the denial;
– the end of the emergency that initially justified the interception; or
– the expiration of 48 hours.
CERTAIN EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE.
The state may not use as evidence in a criminal proceeding information gained through the use of an interception device installed under this subchapter if authorization for the device is not sought or is sought but not obtained.
As always, the best option is to contact Atlas Bail and go over available info and all the details. With our experience, knowledge and great customer service, we can have your loved ones back to you as soon as the law will allow us. From the moment you show up in our office we understand your need for guidance and help. The fact that a person is in jail is only the beginning of the process. Selecting AAA Atlas Bail is an important first step. With years of experience in our office, we most definitely will have the right answer for you.