Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 626A. WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS; INTERCEPTION
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 626A.05 (2026)

Authorization For Interception Of Wire, Electronic, Or Oral Communications

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Application for warrant.

The attorney general or a county attorney of any county may make application as provided in section 626A.06, to a judge of the district court, of the court of appeals, or of the supreme court for a warrant authorizing or approving the interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications by investigative or law enforcement officers having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made. No court commissioner shall issue a warrant under this chapter.

Subd. 2.Offenses for which interception of wire or oral communication may be authorized.

A warrant authorizing interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications by investigative or law enforcement officers may only be issued when the interception may provide evidence of the commission of, or of an attempt or conspiracy to commit, any of the following offenses:

(1) a felony offense involving murder, manslaughter, assault in the first, second, and third degrees, aggravated robbery, carjacking in the first or second degree, kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, and third degrees, prostitution, bribery, perjury, escape from custody, theft, receiving stolen property, embezzlement, burglary in the first, second, and third degrees, forgery, aggravated forgery, check forgery, or financial transaction card fraud, as punishable under sections 609.185, 609.19, 609.195, 609.20, 609.221, 609.222, 609.223, 609.2231, 609.245, 609.247, subdivision 2 or 3, 609.25, 609.321 to 609.324, 609.342, 609.343, 609.344, 609.42, 609.48, 609.485, subdivision 4, paragraph (a), clause (1), 609.52, 609.53, 609.54, 609.582, 609.625, 609.63, 609.631, 609.821, and 609.825;

(2) an offense relating to gambling or controlled substances, as punishable under section 609.76 or chapter 152; or

(3) an offense relating to restraint of trade defined in section 325D.53, subdivision 1 or 2, as punishable under section 325D.56, subdivision 2.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1973–2008 · leading case: State v. Clark, 755 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Clark, 755 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 20× “10 as applied to the Minnesota Privacy of Communications Act, Minn.Stat. § 626A.05, subd. 1 (2006), which was enacted after section 388.”
State v. Monsrud, 337 N.W.2d 652 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 38× “2516(2), Minn.Stat. § 626A.05, subd. 1 (1982), and Minn.”
State v. Quinn, 436 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1989). · cites it 12× “*765 While this court has not before been called upon to address the specific issue raised by this case, on two previous occasions we have addressed two other provisions of the Privacy of Communications Act.”
Wolk v. DeCowski, 310 N.W.2d 131 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 4× “The orders, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 626A.05 (1980), were based on information suggesting plaintiffs were involved in illegal gambling.”
State v. Page, 386 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 626A.05. Under the facts presented here, the police used the telephone extension in the ordinary course of business and the eavesdropping did not constitute an interception as defined by statute.”
State v. Frink, 206 N.W.2d 664 (Minn. 1973). “) The corresponding section of the Minnesota Privacy of Communications Act, § 626A.05, subd. 1, provides: “The attorney general or a county attorney of any county may make application as provided in section 626A.”
Minn. Stat. § 626A.05(1): 1 case
State v. Quinn, 436 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1989). “*765 While this court has not before been called upon to address the specific issue raised by this case, on two previous occasions we have addressed two other provisions of the Privacy of Communications Act.”
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.