Within a reasonable time but not later than ninety days next succeeding the termination of the period of an order or extensions thereof, the panel may cause to be served on the persons named in the order or the application, and shall cause to be served on persons not named in the order or application whose communications were intercepted, an inventory which shall include notice of the fact of the entry of the order or the application; the date of the entry and the period of authorized interception, or the denial of the application; and the fact that during the period wire communications were or were not intercepted. The panel shall make available to such person or his counsel for inspection the intercepted communications, applications and orders immediately upon the filing of a motion requesting such information. On an ex parte showing of good cause approved unanimously by the panel the serving of the inventory required by this section may be postponed for a period not to exceed sixty days. Not more than one such postponement shall be authorized and under no circumstances shall the serving of the inventory required by this section be made later than one hundred fifty days after the termination of the period of an order or extensions thereof.
(1971, P.A. 68, S. 11; P.A. 82-368, S. 8; P.A. 99-215, S. 15.)
History: P.A. 82-368 gave the panel discretion in ordering the service of an inventory, included persons not named in the order whose communications were intercepted as entitled to any such inventory and extended from 90 to 150 days the maximum period of postponement of such inventory; P.A. 99-215 deleted “issuing or denying” before “panel”.
Cited. 191 C. 360; 212 C. 485; 224 C. 593; 238 C. 692.
Strict compliance with provisions of statute is mandatory. 3 CA 477. Cited. 10 CA 347. Service of inventory requirement discussed. 14 CA 605. Cited. 16 CA 245.
When delivery of document to defendant's attorney deemed adequate service. 30 CS 302.
Sec. 54-41l. Intercepted communication admissible as evidence, when. The contents of any intercepted wire communication or evidence derived therefrom shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing or other proceeding in a court of this state unless each aggrieved person, not less than thirty days before such trial, hearing or proceeding, has been served with a copy of the court order, and accompanying application, under which the interception was authorized.
(1971, P.A. 68, S. 12.)
Cited. 191 C. 360; 212 C. 485; 238 C. 253; Id., 692.
Notice not required prior to issuance of bench warrant. 30 CS 302.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1973–1996 · leading case:
State v. Brown, 543 A.2d 750 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988).
State v. Brown, 543 A.2d 750 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 18× “2 The principal issues on this appeal are (1) whether the search warrant for the defendant’s home was supported by probable cause, (2) whether there is a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule under Connecticut law, and (3) whether the requirement of General Statutes §…”
State v. Formica, 489 A.2d 1060 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985).
· cites it 16× “On February 23,1983, a three judge panel granted, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-41d, an application to intercept wire communications on a particular telephone line from February 23, 1983, through March 9,1983.”
State v. Scott, 522 A.2d 1245 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987).
· cites it 12× “All defendants moved to suppress the wiretap evidence and the evidence obtained through the search of Barbary’s residence.”
State v. McVeigh, 620 A.2d 133 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 4× “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 had been intercepted; see General…”
Washington v. Meachum, 680 A.2d 262 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, General Statutes § 54-41k authorizes the three judge panel that issued the interception order to provide notice of the interception to all persons named in the order whose conversations have been overheard, and requires that panel to disclose the fact of the…”
State v. Vallas, 547 A.2d 903 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988).
“The trial court suppressed one conversation, involving Vallas, which was intercepted during order 86-01, on the ground that Vallas was not properly notified of the interception as required by General Statutes *259 § 54-41k. 8 Because this conversation was referred to in the…”
State v. Anonymous, 30 Conn. Supp. 302 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1973).
“IV The defendant also claims that some other aggrieved persons besides himself failed to receive the notice of interception required by General Stat *308 utes § 54-41k as well as the copies of the documents required by § 54-41?.”
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.