R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-5 (2026)

Form and content of orders

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Each order authorizing the interception of any wire, electronic, or oral communication shall specify:

(1) The identity, or a particular description of the person, if known, whose communications are to be intercepted;

(2) The nature and location of the communications facilities as to which, or the place where, authority to intercept is granted;

(3) A particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted, and a statement of the particular offense to which they relate;

(4) The identity of the agency authorized to intercept the communications; and

(5) The period of time during which the interception is authorized, including a statement as to whether or not the interception shall automatically terminate when the described communication has been first obtained.

(b) No order entered under this section may authorize the interception of any wire, electronic, or oral communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, nor in any event longer than thirty (30) days. Extensions of an order may be granted, but only upon application for an extension made in accordance with § 12-5.1-2 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. Every order and extension shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept shall be executed as soon as practicable, shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under this chapter, and must terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective, or in any event in thirty (30) days.

(c) Whenever an order authorizing interception is entered pursuant to this chapter, the order may require reports to be made to the presiding justice of the superior court who issued the order showing what progress has been made toward achievement of the authorized objective and the need for continued interception. These reports shall be made at any intervals that the presiding justice of the superior court may require.

(d) A court order issued by a judge of competent jurisdiction authorizing the interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication may direct an officer, employee, or agent of any communications common carrier or electronic communications service to provide information, facilities, and technical assistance to the applicant attorney general or an assistant attorney general specially designated by the attorney general or law enforcement officer or agency who, pursuant to this chapter, is designated to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication. The communications common carrier or electronic communication service shall, if ordered, immediately furnish the applicant attorney general or assistant attorney general specially designated by the attorney general all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that the communications carrier or electronic communication service is according the person whose communications are to be intercepted. A communications common carrier or electronic communication service shall furnish the information, facilities, and technical assistance at its prevailing rate or tariffs to the applicant attorney general or assistant attorney general specially designated by the attorney general or law enforcement officer or agency so designated to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2022 · leading case: State v. Sitko, 460 A.2d 1 (R.I. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sitko, 460 A.2d 1 (R.I. 1983). · cites it 11× “In particular, defendant contends that the wiretap order did not contain a particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted, as required by our state’s wiretap statute, G.”
State v. Oster, 922 A.2d 151 (R.I. 2007). · cites it 2× “Section 12-5.1-5, entitled “Form and content of orders” states in pertinent part: “Every order and extension shall contain a provision that the authorization * ® * shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to…”
State v. Maloof, 333 A.2d 676 (R.I. 1975). · cites it 5× “Section 12-5.1-5 relates to the form and content of the *383 authorization order.”
State v. Campbell, 528 A.2d 321 (R.I. 1987). · cites it 6× “This concern with providing the police, who “are not familiar with the many explicit conditions and circumstances that are detailed in § 12-5.1-5” relative to the form and content of an order, with definite guidelines to regulate surveillance, also informs our insistence in…”
State v. Luther, 351 A.2d 594 (R.I. 1976). · cites it 2× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §12-5.1-5, which specifies the form and content which must be satisfied in order to conduct an electronic search.”
State v. Deric S. McGuire, 273 A.3d 146 (R.I. 2022). · cites it 3× “In 1975 this Court first determined that when an intercept order fails to comply in form and content with the requirements specified in § 12-5.1-5—such as - 23 - stating, in complete contravention to the statute, that the order “need not terminate upon the accomplishment of the…”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-5(a): 1 case
State v. Sitko, 460 A.2d 1 (R.I. 1983). “In particular, defendant contends that the wiretap order did not contain a particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted, as required by our state’s wiretap statute, G.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-5(a)(3): 1 case
State v. Sitko, 460 A.2d 1 (R.I. 1983). “In particular, defendant contends that the wiretap order did not contain a particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted, as required by our state’s wiretap statute, G.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-5(b): 2 cases
State v. Sitko, 460 A.2d 1 (R.I. 1983). “In particular, defendant contends that the wiretap order did not contain a particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted, as required by our state’s wiretap statute, G.”
State v. Campbell, 528 A.2d 321 (R.I. 1987). “This concern with providing the police, who “are not familiar with the many explicit conditions and circumstances that are detailed in § 12-5.1-5” relative to the form and content of an order, with definite guidelines to regulate surveillance, also informs our insistence in…”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-5(c): 1 case
State v. Campbell, 528 A.2d 321 (R.I. 1987). “This concern with providing the police, who “are not familiar with the many explicit conditions and circumstances that are detailed in § 12-5.1-5” relative to the form and content of an order, with definite guidelines to regulate surveillance, also informs our insistence in…”
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.