MD. Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. §  10-408 (2021)
2021 Maryland Statutes|Courts and Judicial Proceedings|Title 10 - Evidence|Subtitle 4 - Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance|Section 10-408 - Ex Parte Order Authorizing Interception

    (a)    (1)    Each application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge of competent jurisdiction and shall state the applicant’s authority to make the application. Each application shall include the following information:            (i)    The identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application, and the officer authorizing the application;            (ii)    A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify his belief that an order should be issued, including:                1.    Details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed;                2.    Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted;                3.    A particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted; and                4.    The identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted;            (iii)    A full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous;            (iv)    A statement of the period of time for which the interception is required to be maintained. If the nature of the investigation is such that the authorization for interception should not automatically terminate when the described type of communication has been first obtained, a particular description of facts establishing probable cause to believe additional communications of the same type will occur thereafter;            (v)    A full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications known to the individual authorizing and making the application, made to any judge for authorization to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications involving any of the same persons, facilities or places specified in the application, and the action taken by the judge on each application; and            (vi)    Where the application is for the extension of an order, a statement setting forth the results thus far obtained from the interception, or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain the results.        (2)    (i)    In the case of an application authorizing the interception of an oral communication, a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted is not required if the application:                1.    Is by an investigative or law enforcement officer;                2.    Is approved by the Attorney General, the State Prosecutor, or a State’s Attorney;                3.    Contains a full and complete statement as to why specification of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted is not practical; and                4.    Identifies the individual committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted.            (ii)    In the case of an application authorizing the interception of a wire or electronic communication, a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted is not required if the application:                1.    Is by an investigative or law enforcement officer;                2.    Is approved by the Attorney General, the State Prosecutor, or a State’s Attorney;                3.    Identifies the individual believed to be committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted;                4.    Makes a showing that there is probable cause to believe that the individual’s actions could have the effect of thwarting interception from a specified facility; and                5.    Specifies that interception will be limited to any period of time when the investigative or law enforcement officer has a reasonable, articulable belief that the individual identified in the application will be proximate to the communication device and will be using the communication device through which the communication will be transmitted.    (b)    The judge may require the applicant to furnish additional testimony or documentary evidence in support of the application.    (c)    (1)    Upon the application the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or as modified, authorizing interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications within the territorial jurisdiction permitted under paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, if the judge determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that:            (i)    There is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in § 10-406 of this subtitle;            (ii)    There is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through the interception;            (iii)    Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous; and            (iv)    There is probable cause for belief:                1.    That the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, oral, or electronic 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 this person in accordance with subsection (a)(1) of this section; or                2.    That the actions of the individual whose communications are to be intercepted could have the effect of thwarting an interception from a specified facility in accordance with subsection (a)(2) of this section.        (2)    Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection, an ex parte order issued under paragraph (1) of this subsection may authorize the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications only within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the application was filed.        (3)    If an application for an ex parte order is made by the Attorney General, the State Prosecutor, or a State’s Attorney, an order issued under paragraph (1) of this subsection may authorize the interception of communications received or sent by a communication device anywhere within the State so as to permit the interception of the communications regardless of whether the communication device is physically located within the jurisdiction of the court in which the application was filed at the time of the interception. The application must allege that the offense being investigated may transpire in the jurisdiction of the court in which the application is filed.        (4)    In accordance with this subsection, a judge of competent jurisdiction may authorize continued interception within the State, both within and outside the judge’s jurisdiction, if the original interception occurred within the judge’s jurisdiction.    (d)    (1)    Each order authorizing the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication shall specify:            (i)    The identity of the person, if known or required under subsection (a)(2) of this section, whose communications are to be intercepted;            (ii)    The nature and location of the communications facilities as to which, or the place where, authority to intercept is granted, if known;            (iii)    A particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted, and a statement of the particular offense to which it relates;            (iv)    The identity of the agency authorized to intercept the communications, and of the person authorizing the application; and            (v)    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.        (2)    An order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, upon request of the applicant, shall direct that a provider of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian or other person furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that the service provider, landlord, custodian, or person is according the person whose communications are to be intercepted. Any provider of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian or other person furnishing the facilities or technical assistance shall be compensated therefor by the applicant for reasonable expenses incurred in providing facilities or assistance.    (e)    (1)    An order entered under this section may not authorize the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, nor in any event longer than 30 days. The 30-day period begins on the earlier of the day on which the investigative or law enforcement officer first begins to conduct an interception under the order or 10 days after the order is entered.        (2)    Extensions of an order may be granted, but only upon application for an extension made in accordance with subsection (a) of this section and the court making the findings required by subsection (c) of this section. The period of extension shall be no longer than the authorizing judge deems necessary to achieve the purposes for which it was granted and in no event for longer than 30 days.        (3)    Every order and extension thereof 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 subtitle, and must terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective, or in any event in 30 days.        (4)    In the event the intercepted communication is in a code or foreign language, and an expert in that foreign language or code is not reasonably available during the interception period, minimization may be accomplished as soon as practicable after the interception. An interception under this subtitle may be conducted in whole or in part by federal, State, or local government personnel, or by an individual operating under a contract with the State or a political subdivision of the State, acting under the supervision of an investigative or law enforcement officer authorized to conduct the interception.    (f)    Whenever an order authorizing interception is entered pursuant to this subtitle, the order shall require reports to be made 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. The reports shall be made at the intervals the judge requires.    (g)    (1)    The contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by any means authorized by this subtitle, if possible, shall be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device. The recording of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication under this subsection shall be done in the way as will protect the recording from editing or other alterations. Immediately upon the expiration of the period of the order, or extensions thereof, such recordings shall be made available to the judge issuing such order and sealed under his directions. Custody of the recordings shall be wherever the judge orders. They may not be destroyed except upon an order of the issuing or denying judge and in any event shall be kept for ten years. Duplicate recordings may be made for use or disclosure pursuant to the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of § 10–407 of this subtitle for investigations. The presence of the seal provided for by this subsection, or a satisfactory explanation for the absence thereof, shall be a prerequisite for the use or disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom under subsection (c) of § 10–407 of this subtitle.        (2)    Applications made and orders granted under this subtitle shall be sealed by the judge. Custody of the applications and orders shall be wherever the judge directs. The applications and orders shall be disclosed only upon a showing of good cause before a judge of competent jurisdiction and shall not be destroyed except on order of the issuing or denying judge, and in any event shall be kept for 10 years.        (3)    Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punished as contempt of the issuing or denying judge.        (4)    Within a reasonable time, but not later than 90 days after the termination of the period of an order or extension of an order, the issuing judge shall cause to be served on the persons named in the order, and on the other parties to intercepted communications as the judge may determine in the judge’s discretion is in the interest of justice, an inventory which shall include notice of:            (i)    The fact of the entry of the order;            (ii)    The date of the entry and the period of authorized interception; and            (iii)    The fact that during the period wire, oral, or electronic communications were or were not intercepted.        (5)    The judge, upon the filing of a motion, shall make available to the person or the person’s counsel for inspection portions of the intercepted communications, applications, and orders pertaining to that person and the alleged crime.        (6)    On an ex parte showing of good cause to the judge, the serving of the inventory required by this subsection may be postponed. The periods of postponement may not be longer than the authorizing judge deems necessary to achieve the purposes for which they were granted and in no event for longer than 30 days. No more than three periods of postponement may be granted. Any order issued extending the time in which the inventory notice is to be served must be under seal of the court and treated in the same manner as the order authorizing interception.    (h)    The contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or evidence derived therefrom may not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in the courts of this State unless each party, not less than 10 days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding, has been furnished with a copy of the court order, and accompanying application, under which the interception was authorized. Where no application or order is required under the provisions of this subtitle, each party, not less than 10 days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding, shall be furnished with information concerning when, where and how the interception took place and why no application or order was required. This 10-day period may be waived by the judge if he finds that it was not possible to furnish the party with the above information 10 days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding and that the party will not be prejudiced by the delay in receiving the information.    (i)    (1)    Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of this State or a political subdivision thereof, may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that:            (i)    The communication was unlawfully intercepted;            (ii)    The order of authorization under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its face, or was not obtained or issued in strict compliance with this subtitle; or            (iii)    The interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization.        (2)    This motion shall be made in accordance with the Maryland Rules. If the motion is granted, the contents of the intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of this subtitle. The judge, upon the filing of the motion by the aggrieved person, in his discretion may make available to the aggrieved person or his counsel for inspection such portions of the intercepted communication or evidence derived therefrom as the judge determines to be in the interests of justice.        (3)    In addition to any other right to appeal, the State shall have the right to appeal from the denial of an application for an order of approval, if the prosecuting attorney shall certify to the judge or other official denying the application that the appeal is not taken for purposes of delay. The appeal shall be taken within 30 days after the date the order was entered and shall be diligently prosecuted.