SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

P.C. § 629.51: Definitions:
An application for a modification of the original
order may be made when there is “probable cause”
to believe that the target of a wiretap is using a
facility or device that is not subject to the original
order.
The modified order is only good for that
period that applied to the original order.
The application must provide all the
information required of the original order
and a statement of the results thus far
obtained from the interception, or a
reasonable explanation for the failure to
obtain results.
The judge may require the applicant to furnish
additional testimony or documentary evidence in
support of the application.
The fact that the application was made to a
“successor judge” designated by the presiding judge
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.”
© 2011 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
See also People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.App.4 th
175, at p. 224, defining “wire communication” as
317