The Chief State's Attorney or the state's attorney for the judicial district in which the interception is to be conducted may make application to a panel of judges for an order authorizing the interception of any wire communication by investigative officers having responsibility for the investigation of offenses as to which the application is made when such interception may provide evidence of the commission of offenses involving gambling, bribery, violations of section
53-395, violations of section
53a-70c, violations of subsection (a) of section
53a-90a, violations of section
53a-192a, violations of section
53a-196, violations of section
21a-277, violations of section
21a-278b, felonious crimes of violence or felonies involving the unlawful use or threatened use of physical force or violence committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or a unit of government.
(1971, P.A. 68, S. 2; P.A. 78-280, S. 1, 127; P.A. 79-179, S. 2; P.A. 82-368, S. 2; P.A. 83-543, S. 2; P.A. 02-97, S. 13; P.A. 15-195, S. 5; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 21-1, S. 158.)
History: P.A. 78-280 substituted “judicial district” for “county”; P.A. 79-179 deleted reference to law enforcement officers; P.A. 82-368 added bribery and violations of Sec. 53-395 (“CORA”) as crimes for which an application can be made for an interception; P.A. 83-543 authorized the chief state's attorney to make application for interception order; P.A. 02-97 added felonies involving the unlawful use or threatened use of physical force or violence committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or a unit of government as crimes for which an application may be made for an interception; P.A. 15-195 added provision re violations of Secs. 53a-70c, 53a-90a(a), 53a-192a and 53a-196; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 21-1 added “violations of section 21a-278b,”, effective July 1, 2021.
Cited. 171 C. 524; 176 C. 17. Application defective for failure of state's attorney to make formal oath or affirmation. 180 C. 345. Cited. 191 C. 360; 194 C. 447; 199 C. 591; 212 C. 485; 223 C. 906; 224 C. 322; 234 C. 539; 238 C. 692.
Cited. 7 CA 660; 8 CA 673; 27 CA 596; 44 CA 249.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases, 1976–1997 · leading case:
State v. Grant, 404 A.2d 873 (Conn. 1978).
State v. Grant, 404 A.2d 873 (Conn. 1978).
· cites it 24× “" The court granted the motion, finding that the two applications for wiretap orders were acknowledged by the appropriate state's attorneys, but were not submitted under the state's attorneys' oaths as required by General Statutes §§ 54-41b and 54-41c. The court concluded that…”
State v. Chiarizio, 514 A.2d 370 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 11× “Pursuant to General Statutes § 54-41b, the state’s attorney for the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain 1 applied to a judicial wiretap panel for permission to intercept the telephonic communications of the defendant and other unknown persons over telephone facility number…”
State v. Telesca, 508 A.2d 1367 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 7× “On April 1, 1980, the state’s attorney submitted an application, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-41b, to a judicial wiretap panel for a wiretap of a telephone in the apartment of Karen Hyde, with whom the defendant Boucino was known to be living, in Naugatuck.”
State v. Assuntino, 429 A.2d 900 (Conn. 1980).
· cites it 5× “See General Statutes §§ 54-41b 5 and *353 54-41c.”
Washington v. Meachum, 680 A.2d 262 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 54-41b provides that “[t]he chief state’s attorney or the state’s attorney for the judicial district in which the interception is to be conducted may make application to a panel of judges for an order authorizing the interception of any wire communication by…”
State v. Calash, 563 A.2d 660 (Conn. 1989).
· cites it 7× “, and Branford police department detective George Nobile, alleged that Calash was involved in a cocaine trafficking network. The investigators sought the wiretap order to aid in discovering the source of the cocaine and the configuration of the distribution network.”
In Re State Police Litig., 888 F. Supp. 1235 (D. Conn. 1995).
· cites it 4× “See Conn.Gen.Stat. § 54-41b. Like Title III, the State Wiretap Act also provides a civil cause of action and statutory damages: Any person whose wire communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter or of sections 53a-187 to 53a-189, inclusive, shall…”
State v. McVeigh, 620 A.2d 133 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Upon such application the panel of judges, by unanimous vote, may enter an ex parte order authorizing the interception of wire communications within the state of Connecticut, if the panel determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that there is probable…”
Massameno v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 663 A.2d 317 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Because of this role, we also recognize that judicial intrusion may disproportionately impact particular aspects of the prosecutorial function.”
State v. Ross, 481 A.2d 730 (Conn. 1984).
· cites it 4× “82-368, amended subsection (9) by including a provision dealing with the issuance of emergency orders where the violation of § 54-41b may result in imminent peril to public health, safety or welfare.”
State v. Vallas, 547 A.2d 903 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Upon such application the panel of judges, by unanimous vote, may enter an ex parte order authorizing the interception of wire communications within the state of Connecticut, if the panel determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that there is probable…”
State v. Speers, 554 A.2d 769 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 3× “On March 15, 1985, the state’s attorney for the judicial district of Waterbury applied to a panel of judges, by authority of General Statutes § 54-41b, for an order authorizing interception of the telephonic communications of the defendants.”
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.