Wiretap evidence plays a major role in many narcotics cases. Federal and state law enforcement agencies often use recorded phone calls and text messages to build cases against people accused of distributing controlled substances. Unlike other types of surveillance, wiretaps require court approval and are governed by strict rules.
When Wiretaps Are Allowed
Wiretaps are not the first tool investigators turn to. Before a judge will approve a wiretap order, law enforcement must show that other methods have failed or are unlikely to succeed. This includes surveillance, undercover buys, and informant testimony. The court needs to be convinced that the wiretap is necessary and that it will likely produce useful information.
Once approved, the wiretap order must identify the specific phones or devices being monitored, and it usually only lasts for a limited time. Investigators are required to minimize the collection of unrelated conversations. In some cases, these rules are not followed carefully, which can create problems later.
How Recordings Are Used In Court
Wiretap recordings often provide direct evidence of conversations about drug deals, pricing, routes, and participants. Prosecutors may use these calls to tie individuals together in a conspiracy. Transcripts of calls can also be used to support search warrants or to justify arrests.
However, the quality and context of these recordings matter. Calls taken out of context, or those that involve slang or coded language, can be challenged. A skilled drug defense lawyer may argue that the conversations are misinterpreted or that the people involved were not knowingly participating in illegal activity.
Legal Challenges To Wiretap Evidence
One of the most effective ways to defend against wiretap evidence is to challenge how it was obtained. Defense attorneys may file motions to suppress the recordings, arguing that the wiretap was improperly authorized or that the government failed to meet its obligations during the process.
For example, if the affidavit requesting the wiretap did not show a valid need or if the government continued recording after the warrant expired, this could be grounds to exclude the evidence. Similarly, if the wiretap picked up private conversations not related to the investigation, a judge might rule that the scope was too broad.
Why Early Legal Involvement Matters
Cases involving wiretap evidence tend to move quickly. Once law enforcement has collected enough material, they often arrest several people at once based on months of recordings. Those accused can be overwhelmed by the volume of evidence and the complexity of the charges.
Attorneys like those at Stechschulte Nell can attest that reviewing every aspect of a wiretap case takes time and focus. From examining the original application to analyzing every transcript, a strong defense often depends on finding procedural problems or misinterpretations.
Working with an experienced legal team helps protect a defendant’s rights and may lead to reduced charges or a better outcome at trial. In cases where a person is charged based largely on what was said over the phone, challenging that evidence is one of the most important parts of the defense.