SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

P.C. § 629.51: Definitions:
to hear applications if the first-named judge is
unavailable did not violate the requirements under
this section. (People v. Munoz (2001) 87
Cal.App.4 th 239, 242.)
A judge must accept a facsimile copy of the
signature that is required on an application for a
wiretap order.
The original signed document is to be sealed and
kept with the application.
“Wire Communication:” “(A)ny aural transfer made in
whole or in part through the use of facilities for the
transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable,
or other like connection between the point of origin and the
point of reception (including the use of a like connection in
a switching station), furnished or operated by any person
engaged in providing or operating these facilities for the
transmission of communications.”
See also People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.App.4 th
175, at p. 224, defining “wire communication” as
“any aural transfer made in whole or in part through
the use of facilities for the transmission of
communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other
like connection between the point of origin and the
point of reception (including the use of such
connection in a switching station) furnished or
operated by any person engaged in providing or
operating such facilities for the transmission of
interstate or foreign commerce . . . .”
A phone used during a physical visitation by a
prisoner and his or her visitor does not meet the
requirements of a “wire communication,” not using
a line in interstate or foreign commerce. It is
therefore not subject to the wiretap restrictions of
P.C. § 631. (People v. Santos (1972) 26
Cal.App.3 rd 397, 402.)
But cloned cell phones are included. (United States
v. Staves (2004) 383 F.3 rd 977.)
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
339