(a) Upon the application as provided in § 12-5.1-2 the presiding justice of the superior court, or the senior associate justice of the
superior court when the presiding justice shall disqualify himself or herself from
entering the order, may enter an ex parte order, as required or as modified, authorizing
the interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications if the presiding justice
of the superior court determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant
that:
(1) There is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed,
or is about to commit a particular designated offense;
(2) There is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that
offense will be obtained through the interception;
(3) Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear
to be unlikely to succeed if tried, or to be too dangerous;
(4) There is probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where,
the wire, electronic, or oral communications are to be intercepted, are being used,
or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of the offense, or are
leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by the individual.
(b) If the facilities from which a wire, electronic, or oral communication is to be intercepted
are public, no order of authorization shall be issued unless the court, in addition
to the matters provided in subsection (a) of this section, determines that there is
a special need to intercept wire communications over the facilities.
(c) If the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, electronic, or oral communications
are to be intercepted, are being used, or are about to be used, or are leased to,
listed in the name of, or commonly used by, a licensed attorney-at-law, or an ordained
minister of the gospel, priest, or rabbi of any denomination, or is a place used primarily
for habitation by a husband and wife, no order shall be issued unless the presiding
justice of the superior court, in addition to the matters provided in subsection (a)
of this section, determines that there is a special need to intercept wire, electronic,
or oral communications over those facilities or in those places, and that the interceptions
will be so conducted as to minimize or eliminate interception of privileged communication
between lawyers and clients, clergy and confidants, or husbands and wives.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2022 · leading case:
State v. DiStefano, 764 A.2d 1156 (R.I. 2000).
State v. DiStefano, 764 A.2d 1156 (R.I. 2000).
· cites it 4× “1956 § 4-1-19, authorizing the issuance of a search warrant to search any place believed to be connected to the cruelty of animals; and finally, G.L. 1956 §§ 12-5.1-4 and 12-5.2-2, authorizing the interception of wire communications and the issuance of an order for the use of a…”
State v. Dearmas, 841 A.2d 659 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 2× “1956 § 4-1-19 (place connected with acts that are cruel to animals); G.L. 1956 § 12-5.1-4 (authorizing interception of wire communications); G.”
State v. Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d 1070 (R.I. 1981).
“See § 12-5.1-4(3) (issuance of orders by the presiding justice).”
State v. Campbell, 528 A.2d 321 (R.I. 1987).
· cites it 4× “An application, on the other hand, is directed to the presiding justice of the Superior Court, who clearly must be aware of what it must contain, since according to § 12-5.1-4 he or she must make specific determinations before issuing an order relating directly to information…”
State v. Oster, 922 A.2d 151 (R.I. 2007).
“The necessity element is set forth in § 12-5.1-4, entitled "Issuance of orders” which states in pertinent part: "(a) * ® ® the presiding justice of the superior court ® * * may enter an ex parte order, ® * * authorizing the interception of wire, electronic, or oral…”
State v. McGoff, 517 A.2d 232 (R.I. 1986).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 12-5.1-4 requires a judicial determination of probable cause before a wiretap order can issue.”
State v. Maloof, 333 A.2d 676 (R.I. 1975).
“1-2 and the court making the findings required by §12-5.1-4. The period of extension shall be no longer than the presiding justice of the superior court deems necessary to achieve the purposes for which it was granted and in no event for longer than thirty (30) days.”
State v. Deric S. McGuire (R.I. 2022).
· cites it 2× “1-3; see § 12-5.1-4. Therefore, only those two individuals are vested with the statutory authority to issue wiretap orders.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-4(3): 1 case
State v. Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d 1070 (R.I. 1981).
“See § 12-5.1-4(3) (issuance of orders by the presiding justice).”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-4(a)(3): 1 case
State v. Deric S. McGuire (R.I. 2022).
“1-3; see § 12-5.1-4. Therefore, only those two individuals are vested with the statutory authority to issue wiretap orders.”
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.