Granting of order; grounds; form; compensation of those furnishing assistance; time limit; authorization for covert entry; reports to judge; recusal of judge.

Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-515
in effect
Sign in to generate a plain English summaryAsk Belisarius Agent
Upon receipt of an application, the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or as modified, authorizing interception of wire, oral or other communications if the judge determines from the evidence submitted by the applicant that: There is probable cause to believe that a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in Section 41-29-505; There is probable cause to believe that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through the interception; Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed or to be too dangerous if tried; There is probable cause to believe that the facilities from which or the place where the wire, oral or other communications are to be intercepted are being used or are about to be used in connection with the commission of an offense or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by the person; and A covert entry is or is not necessary to properly and safely install the electronic, mechanical or other device. Each order authorizing the interception of a wire or oral communication shall specify: The identity of the person, if known, whose communications are to be intercepted; The nature and location of the communications facilities as to which or the place where authority to intercept is granted; A particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted and a statement of the particular offense to which it relates; A statement setting forth the identity of the prosecutor and stating that the director has requested the prosecutor to apply for the order authorizing the interception; The time during which the interception is authorized, including a statement of whether or not the interception will automatically terminate when the described communication is first obtained; and Whether or not a covert entry is necessary to properly and safely install wiretapping, electronic surveillance or eavesdropping equipment. The order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral or other communication shall, upon request of the applicant, direct that a communication common carrier, landlord, custodian or other person furnish the applicant all information, facilities and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that the carrier, landlord, custodian or other person is providing the person whose communications are to be intercepted. Any communication common carrier, landlord, custodian or other person furnishing facilities or technical assistance is entitled to compensation by the applicant for the facilities or assistance at the prevailing rates. An order entered pursuant to this section may not authorize the interception of a wire, oral or other communication for longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, and in no event may it authorize interception for more than thirty (30) days. The issuing judge may grant extensions of an order, but only upon application for an extension made in accordance with Section 41-29-513 and the court making the findings required by subsection (1) of this section. The period of extension may not be longer than the authorizing judge deems necessary to achieve the purposes for which it is granted, and in no event may the extension be for more than thirty (30) days. To be valid, each order and extension of an order shall provide that the authorization to intercept be executed as soon as practicable, be conducted in a way that minimizes the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under this article, and terminate on obtaining the authorized objective or within thirty (30) days, whichever occurs sooner. An order entered pursuant to this section may not authorize a covert entry into a residence solely for the purpose of intercepting a wire communication. An order entered pursuant to this section may not authorize a covert entry into or onto a premises for the purpose of intercepting an oral or other communication unless: The judge, in addition to making the determinations required under subsection (1) of this section, determines that: (A) The premises into or onto which the covert entry is authorized or the person whose communications are to be obtained has been the subject of a pen register previously authorized in connection with the same investigation; (B) the premises into or onto which the covert entry is authorized or the person whose communications are to be obtained has been the subject of an interception of wire communications previously authorized in connection with the same investigation; (C) that such procedures have failed; and (D) if the order is for the interception of other communications and requires covert entry, a court-ordered attempt to intercept the communications without using covert entry must have been made without success; That the procedures enumerated in item (i) reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed or to be too dangerous if tried or are not feasible under the circumstances or exigencies of time; and The order, in addition to the matters required to be specified under subsection (2) of this section, specifies that the covert entry is for the purpose of intercepting oral communications of two (2) or more persons and that there is probable cause to believe they are committing, have committed, or are about to commit a particular offense enumerated in Section 41-29-505. The judge of a court of competent jurisdiction may issue an order for the interception of wire, oral or other communications conducted within a vehicle, vessel, other mode of transportation or any location where a reasonable expectation of privacy might exist, provided the requirements of this section, where applicable, are met. Whenever an order authorizing interception is entered pursuant to this article, the order may require reports to the judge who issued the order showing what progress has been made toward achievement of the authorized objective and the need for continued interception. Reports shall be made at any interval the judge requires. A judge who issues an order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral or other communication may not hear a criminal prosecution in which evidence derived from the interception may be used or in which the order may be an issue. An order issued pursuant to this section authorizing the interception of any cellular, portable, transportable or mobile telephone or communication instrument is valid throughout the State of Mississippi unless otherwise specified by the issuing judge.

Starting a business in Mississippi? Mississippi LLC guide: costs and requirements