Opinion ID: 682811
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Description of Location in Application and Order

Text: 13 Defendant also argues that both the application and the order were facially invalid because neither included a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which the wire communications were to be intercepted. We first address the adequacy of the description in the application, and then examine the adequacy of the order. 14 An application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire communication must include a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which, or the place where the wire ... communications are to be intercepted. Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 13, Sec. 176.9(A)(2)(b) (West 1994). The district court noted in its order denying defendant's motion that this statutory provision is worded in the disjunctive; thus, the application needed to specify the location of either the facilities from which or the place where the communications would be intercepted. Although the term facilities is not defined in the statute, we agree with the district court that usage of the term in other provisions of the Oklahoma Act indicates that facilities means the target telephones. See Sec. 176.9(C)(4) (the facilities from which ... the wire ... communications are to be intercepted[ ] are being used by an individual or are about to be used in connection with the commission of [an] offense). 15 The application here requested authorization to intercept the wire communications of telephone instruments located at Route 4, Box 175, Atoka, Oklahoma. This is a sufficiently particular description of the nature and location of the target telephones, thereby fulfilling the requirements of section 176.9(A)(2)(b). 16 Defendant's argument that the order lacks particularly also fails. Like section 176.9(A)(2)(b), section 176.9(D)(2)'s requirements are worded disjunctively. The order must specify [t]he nature and location of the communications facilities as to which, or the place where, authority to intercept is granted. Sec. 176.9(D)(2). Again, facilities is used elsewhere in the Oklahoma Act to mean the targeted telephones. The order issued here authorized interception of wire communications which occur on telephone(s) operating with [specific telephone numbers] located at Route 4, Box 175, Atoka, Oklahoma. Because the targeted telephones were specified in the order, the order complied with section 176.9(D)(2).