Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 626A.37 (2026)

Issuance Of Order For Pen Register, Trap And Trace Device, Or Mobile Tracking Device

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.In general.

Upon an application made under section 626A.36, the court may enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register, trap and trace device, or mobile tracking device within the jurisdiction of the court if the court finds on the basis of the information submitted by the applicant that there is reason to believe that the information likely to be obtained by the installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Subd. 2.Contents of order.

(a) An order issued under this section must specify:

(1) the identity, if known, of the person to whom is leased or in whose name is listed the telephone line to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or of the person to be traced by the mobile tracking device;

(2) the identity, if known, of the person who is the subject of the criminal investigation;

(3) the number and, if known, physical location of the telephone line to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or the identity or nature of the object or objects to which the mobile tracking device is to be attached, and, in the case of a trap and trace device, the geographic limits of the trap and trace order;

(4) a statement of the offense to which the information likely to be obtained by the pen register, trap and trace device, or mobile tracking device relates;

(5) the identity of the law enforcement or investigative officer responsible for installation and use of the pen register, trap and trace device, or mobile tracking device; and

(6) the period during which the use of the pen register, trap and trace device, or mobile tracking device is authorized.

(b) An order issued under this section must direct, upon the request of the applicant, the furnishing of information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the installation of the pen register, trap and trace device, or mobile tracking device under section 626A.38.

Subd. 3.Time period and extensions.

(a) An order issued under this section must authorize the installation and use of a pen register, a trap and trace device, or a mobile tracking device for a period not to exceed 60 days, or the period necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, whichever is less.

(b) Extensions of an order may be granted, but only upon an application for an order under section 626A.36 and upon the judicial finding required by subdivision 1. The extension must include a statement of any changes in the information required in subdivision 2. The period of extension must be for a period not to exceed 60 days, or the period necessary to achieve the objective for which it is granted, whichever is less.

Subd. 4.Nondisclosure of existence of pen register, trap and trace device, or mobile tracking device.

(a) An order authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register, trap and trace device, or a mobile tracking device must direct that:

(1) the order be sealed until otherwise ordered by the court; and

(2) the person owning or leasing the line to which the pen register or a trap and trace device is attached, or who has been ordered by the court to provide assistance to the applicant, not disclose the existence of the pen register, trap and trace device, mobile tracking device, or the existence of the investigation to the listed subscriber, or to any other person, unless or until otherwise ordered by the court.

(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to an order that involves location information of electronic devices, as defined in section 626A.42. Instead, the filing, sealing, and reporting requirements for those orders are governed by section 626A.42, subdivision 4. However, any portion of an order that does not involve location information of electronic devices continues to be governed by paragraph (a).

Subd. 5.Jurisdiction.

A warrant or other order for a mobile tracking device issued under this section or other authority may authorize the use of a mobile tracking device within the jurisdiction of the court and outside of that jurisdiction as long as the device is installed in the jurisdiction.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “Several other states have enacted legislation imposing civil and criminal penalties for the use of electronic tracking devices and expressly requiring exclusion of evidence produced by such a device unless obtained by the police acting pursuant to a warrant.”

State of Minnesota v. Joshua Dwight Liebl, 886 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 14× “FACTS On September 24, 2014, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Conservation Officer Ed Picht submitted to the issuing court a signed and sworn application requesting judicial authorization, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 626A.37 (2014), to covertly install and monitor a global…”

State v. Fakler, 503 N.W.2d 783 (Minn. 1993). · cites it 10× “Defendants challenged the pen register orders at their joint omnibus hearing, arguing that the applications for the orders were insufficient to meet the standards imposed by Minn.Stat. § 626A.37 (1990). The district court held that the applications for the pen register orders…”

People v. Weaver, 909 N.E.2d 1195 (NY 2009). “5 [3] [b]; see also Minn Stat § 626A.37 [1]; Fla Stat § 934.42 [2] [b]).”

In re the United States for an Order Authorizing Disclosure of Location Info. of a Specified Wireless Tel., 849 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D. Maryland 2011). “5; Minn.Stat. §§ 626A.37, 626A.35; Fla. Stat.”

State v. Benson, 484 N.W.2d 46 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 36× “This standard is set forth in Minn.Stat. § 626A.37 (1990), a declaration of the trial court's authority.”

United States v. Ryan Thompson, 976 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2020). “information sought[ is] relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation”); Minn. Stat. § 626A.37 (requiring a finding “that there is reason to believe that the information likely to be obtained .”

State v. Holden, 54 A.3d 1123 (Del. Super. Ct. 2010). “6 (Requiring a warrant to be issued upon "probable cause [ ] shown for believing that such installation or use will lead to the discovery of evidence”); Haw.”

State v. White, 2013 Ohio 5221 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “Several other states have enacted legislation imposing civil and criminal penalties for the use of electronic tracking devices and expressly requiring exclusion of evidence produced by such a device unless obtained by the police acting pursuant to a warrant.”

State v. Sullivan, 2013 Ohio 5276 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “Several other states have enacted legislation imposing civil and criminal penalties for the use of electronic tracking devices and expressly requiring exclusion of evidence produced by such a device unless obtained by the police acting pursuant to a warrant.”

Misfit Coffee Co., LLC v. Donatell (D. Minnesota 2025). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 626A.37 broadly governs the issuance and contents of orders authorizing various tracking and surveillance efforts by police, and this section of state law makes no distinction between daytime and nighttime in execution.”

State of Arizona v. Emilio Jean (Ariz. 2018). “7; Minn. Stat. §§ 626A.37, 626A.35; Okla. Stat.”

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.