Court Opinion

ID: 9856557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:50:27.26842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:13.231636
License: Public Domain

Fatzer, C. J.,
dissenting: I must respectfully dissent. In my opinion the court is being too technical in its construction of K. S. A. 1971 Supp. 22-2513 (1) (now repealed) that the Shawnee County wiretaps were illegally obtained. As provided in 18 U. S. C. § 2516(2) the attorney general of Kansas “authorized or approved” the interception of wire communication in the Shawnee County case. The attorney general’s affidavit of March 21, 1975, specifically indicates he “reviewed, authorized and approved” the Shawnee County application — this complied with K. S. A. 1971 Supp. 22-2513 (1) and 18 U. S. C. §2516(2). I would reverse the district court’s judgment concluding that the Shawnee County wiretaps were illegally obtained.
Kaul, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.