Cal. Codes » Penal Code / PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS / TITLE 15. MISCELLANEOUS CRIMES / CHAPTER 1.4. Interception of Wire, Electronic Digital Pager, or Electronic Cellular Telephone Communications
California Codes

Cal. Penal Code § 629.52 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Upon application made under Section 629.50, the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or modified, authorizing interception of wire or electronic communications initially intercepted 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, all of the following:

(a)There is probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit, one of the following offenses:

(1)Importation, possession for sale, transportation, manufacture, or sale of controlled substances in violation of Section 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11370.6, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, 11379.5, or 11379.6 of the Health and Safety Code with respect to a substance containing heroin, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamine, fentanyl, or their precursors or analogs where the substance exceeds 10 gallons by liquid volume or three pounds of solid substance by weight.

(2)Murder, solicitation to commit murder, a violation of Section 209, or the commission of a felony involving a destructive device in violation of Section 18710, 18715, 18720, 18725, 18730, 18740, 18745, 18750, or 18755.

(3)A felony violation of Section 186.22.

(4)A felony violation of Section 11418, relating to weapons of mass destruction, Section 11418.5, relating to threats to use weapons of mass destruction, or Section 11419, relating to restricted biological agents.

(5)A violation of Section 236.1.

(6)A felony violation of subdivision (b) or (d) of Section 311.2 or subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 311.4.

(7)An attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above-mentioned crimes.

(b)There is probable cause to believe that particular communications concerning the illegal activities will be obtained through that interception, including, but not limited to, communications that may be utilized for locating or rescuing a kidnap victim.

(c)There is probable cause to believe that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire or electronic communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of the offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by the person whose communications are to be intercepted.

(d)Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear either unlikely to succeed if tried or too dangerous.

(e)Notwithstanding any other provision in this section, no magistrate shall enter an ex parte order authorizing interception of wire or electronic communications for the purpose of investigating or recovering evidence of a prohibited violation, as defined in Section 629.51.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2003–2020 · leading case: People v. Leon, 150 P.3d 207 (Cal. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Leon, 150 P.3d 207 (Cal. 2007). · cites it 2× “) Defendants seek to suppress the contents and all fruits of five wiretaps that were instituted as part of the investigation, claiming that the wiretaps violated California law (Pen. Code, § 629.52, subd. (d)) and the Fourth Amendment in that the government’s affidavits in…”
State of Delaware v. Jermaine Brinkley, 132 A.3d 839 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016). “the administrative judicial district in which the following is located; (1) the site of; (A) the proposed interception; or (B) the interception device to be installed ' or monitored; (2) the cómmunication device to be intercepted; (3) the billing, residential, or business…”
Whitaker v. Garcetti, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2003). “50 (1999)(listing the numerous and detailed specifications to be included in an application for a wiretap order); see also Cal.Penal Code § 629.52 (1999)(Iisting the many findings that a court is required to make before it issues a wiretap order, including but not limited to a…”
Fernandez v. Busby, 27 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “California Penal Code section 629.52 provides that a judge may authorize the interception of wire or electronic communications if the judge finds (1) “probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit” certain listed crimes; (2)…”
Guerrero v. Hestrin (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). “” (Pen. Code, § 629.52, subd. (d); undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.”
People v. Valenzuela CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “Each requires the judge, before authorizing a wiretap, to find that normal investigative techniques ‘have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 629.52(d) — 1 case
People v. Valenzuela CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “Each requires the judge, before authorizing a wiretap, to find that normal investigative techniques ‘have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.