Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 54 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · Chapter 959a — Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-41e (2026)

Statement by panel on issuance of order. Contents of order

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Each order authorizing the interception of any wire communication shall be accompanied by a written statement of the panel setting forth in detail its determination made in accordance with the provisions of section 54-41d and the grounds therefor and shall specify: (1) The identity of the person, if known, whose communications are to be intercepted; (2) the nature and location of the communication facilities as to which or the place where authority to intercept is granted; (3) a particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted, and a statement of the particular offense to which it relates; (4) the identity of the investigative officers authorized to intercept such wire communications; (5) the identity of the investigative or law enforcement officers to whom disclosure of the contents of any intercepted wire communication or any evidence derived therefrom may be made; (6) the use to which the contents of any intercepted wire communication or any evidence derived therefrom may be put; (7) the identity of the person making the application and his authority; (8) the identity of the panel and its authority to issue an order; (9) the period of time during which such interception is authorized, including a statement that the interception shall automatically terminate when the desired communication has been first obtained; (10) express authorization to make secret entry onto private premises to install any device, provided no such secret entry shall be authorized if there exists a practicable alternative method of executing the order which will preserve the secrecy of its execution; (11) the date of issuance of the order and its effective date. Every order and extension thereof shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept shall be executed as soon as practicable, shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, and shall terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective, or in any event within fifteen days next succeeding the date of issuance of such order. An order authorizing the interception of a wire communication shall, upon request of the applicant, direct that a communication common carrier, landlord, custodian or other person shall furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier, landlord, custodian or person is according the person whose communications are to be intercepted. Any communication common carrier, landlord, custodian or other person furnishing such facilities or technical assistance shall be compensated therefor by the applicant at the prevailing rates.

(1971, P.A. 68, S. 5; P.A. 79-179, S. 5; P.A. 82-368, S. 5; P.A. 99-215, S. 10.)

History: P.A. 79-179 removed reference to law enforcement officers in Subdiv. (4); P.A. 82-368 increased from 10 to 15 days the maximum duration of an order authorizing the interception of a wire communication; P.A. 99-215 deleted “issuing” before “panel”.

Cited. 176 C. 17. The remedy of total suppression considered entirely appropriate when execution of wiretap in complete disregard of minimization occurred; minimization requirement discussed. 191 C. 360. Cited. 210 C. 804; Id., 805; 212 C. 485; 224 C. 593; 238 C. 692.

Cited. 5 CA 207; Id., 634; 8 CA 673; 9 CA 182; 16 CA 245.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1978–1993 · leading case: State v. Chiarizio, 514 A.2d 370 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Chiarizio, 514 A.2d 370 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 19× “The principal issues *675 are: (1) whether a telephone leased to a bar and made available for local calls to its patrons is a public telephone facility within the meaning of General Statutes § 54-4M (7); (2) whether General Statutes § 54-41e requires more from the judicial panel…”
State v. Calash, 563 A.2d 660 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 16× “See General Statutes § 54-41d (7). 8 In accordance with General Statutes § 54-41e, 9 the order concluded that “[t]his *493 order shall be executed as soon as practicable, shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to…”
State v. McVeigh, 620 A.2d 133 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 6× “) General Statutes § 54-41a (10). Such a person has all the protections afforded by the act against unlawful invasions of his privacy, including minimization of the degree of interception; see General Statutes § 54-41e; footnote 26, infra; prompt notice that his conversations…”
State v. Grant, 404 A.2d 873 (Conn. 1978). · cites it 4× “§§2510-2518 ; section 54-41c prohibits the issuance of an order if the information upon which the order is based is discovered more than fifteen days preceding the date of the application, while § 2518 imposes no such restriction; section 54-41b limits the use of electronic…”
State v. Thompson, 464 A.2d 799 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 4× “) In addition to the order itself, the panel is required to prepare a statement pursuant to General Statutes § 54-41e; see footnote 5, supra; and a report to be submitted to the chief court administrator.”
State v. Ross, 481 A.2d 730 (Conn. 1984). “Such accompanying affidavits may be based either on personal knowledge of the affiant, or information and belief with the source thereof and reason therefor specified.”
State v. Vallas, 547 A.2d 903 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). “6 There is no statutory requirement contained, however, in that section or in § 54-41e, which delineates the necessary contents of the panel’s order, 7 man *255 dating a written finding of a special need.”
State v. Levine, 497 A.2d 774 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 54-41e; see State v. Thompson, 191 Conn.”
Higgins v. Fuessenich, 452 F. Supp. 1331 (D. Conn. 1978). “§ 54-41e. Both plaintiffs and defendants move for partial summary judgment on the minimization issue.”
State v. Mastrianni, 501 A.2d 772 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 2× “The issues raised amount to little more than a wholesale and hypertechnical attack on the procedures set forth in General Statutes § 54-41d concerning the necessary findings which the panel of judges must make before issuing an order authorizing the interception of a wire…”
State v. Iovine, 517 A.2d 644 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 2× “These are wiretap cases in which the trial court granted the defendants’ motions to suppress on the bases that (1) the issuing panel did not state the “grounds” of its probable cause determinations, as required by General Statutes § 54-41e, and (2) the panel made findings of…”
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.