Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.7 (2026)

Court order authorizing interception of communications

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The Attorney General, upon application by a district attorney, may make application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with the Security of Communications Act, an order authorizing the interception of wire, oral or electronic communications by any law enforcement agency of this state or any political subdivision thereof having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made, when such interception may provide evidence of acts of biochemical terrorism, terrorism, terrorism hoax, and biochemical assault, as defined in Section 1268.1 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the commission of the offense of murder, the cultivation or manufacture or distribution of narcotic drugs or other controlled dangerous substances as defined in the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, trafficking in illegal drugs as defined in the Trafficking in Illegal Drugs Act, the trafficking of humans for labor or for commercial sex as defined in Section 748 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the pandering of humans for sex as provided in Section 1081 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes or the prostitution of a child as defined in Section 1030 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, child sexual exploitation or permitting child sexual exploitation as defined in Section 843.5 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, soliciting sexual conduct or communication with a minor by use of technology as defined in Section 1040.13a of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, and any conspiracy to commit the crimes specifically enumerated in this section.

Added by Laws 1982, c. 343, § 7. Amended by Laws 1989, c. 216, § 5, eff. Nov. 1, 1989; Laws 1990, c. 232, § 10, emerg. eff. May 18, 1990; Laws 2004, c. 289, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2004; Laws 2015, c. 28, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2015; Laws 2021, c. 145, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2021.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1994–2007 · leading case: United States v. Balbino Dejesus Tavarez, A/K/A Munchie, 40 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Balbino Dejesus Tavarez, A/K/A Munchie, 40 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 1994). “See Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 13, § 176.7 (West 1994).”

Evans v. State, 2007 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). “13 O.S.Supp.2004, §§ 176.7, 176.9(A)(1). As for the misdesecription of Appellant's physical address (also at issue in Proposition 1), we find this to be immaterial because the order was directed not at a physical place, but at a mobile communications device whose assigned…”

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.