Lesley Chappell Green v. United States

This case concerns the lawful application of “intercept” under the Wiretap Act (Title III), which provides that "‘intercept’ means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.” 18 U.S.C. §2510(4). Title III further provides that “the [sanctioning] judge may enter an ex parte order… approving interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting.” 18 U.S.C. §2518(3). Consistent therewith, Georgia’s Wiretap Law provides that a court may issue an investigation warrant permitting the use of a device for the surveillance of a person or place to the extent the same is consistent with and subject to the terms, conditions, and procedures provided for by 18 U.S.C. Chapter 119 [Title III]. Such warrant shall have state-wide application and interception of communications shall be permitted in any location in this state. O.C.G.A. §16-11-64(c). In this case, law enforcement used, in their investigation and prosecution, intercepted communications from a target telephone that law enforcement knew was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the sanctioning court at the time of interception. The question presented is: Whether the Government met the intended constraints of Title III and state law incorporating Title III for a lawful interception of communications within the territorial jurisdiction of the sanctioning court, when it failed to show the intercepted communications were, in actual fact, acquired within the territorial jurisdiction and did show it first acted upon intercepted communications outside the territorial jurisdiction, by merely showing the communications were first listened to within the territorial jurisdiction?