United States Ninth Circuit

Defendant's criminal case is remanded for the limited purpose of full development of the factual record with respect to the authority of an assistant San Bernardino County district attorney who applied for a state wiretap, where: 1) the language "the principal prosecuting attorney" found in 18 U.S.C. section 2516(2) can include a state assistant district attorney who has been duly designated to act in the absence of the district attorney; and 2) under California Penal Code section 629.50, the attorney designated to act in the district attorney's absence must be acting in the district attorney's absence not just as an assistant district attorney designated with the limited authority to apply for a wiretap order, but as an assistant district attorney duly designated to act for all purposes as the district attorney of the political subdivision; but 3) here, the record is insufficient to determine the precise nature of the assistant district attorney's authority at the time he applied for the disputed wiretap.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/16/2013
• Published 07/16/2013

Judges

• TROTT

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel