S5793   VOLKER
VOLKER
Add S700.75, CP L
In cases of terrorism, authorizes court to order roving interception of communication where person committing offense is
changing facility to thwart interception; describes circumstances when order may be amended.
Attorney General

STATUS:
Criminal Procedure Law
TITLE....In cases of terrorism authorizes court to order roving interception of communication where person committing offense
is changing facility to thwart interception
09/17/01          REFERRED TO RULES
09/17/01         ORDERED TO THIRD READING CAL.1479
09/17/01         MESSAGE OF NECESSITY - 3 DAY MESSAGE
09/17/01         PASSED SENATE
09/17/01         DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
09/17/01         referred to codes
 

BILL TEXT:

 
                STATE OF NEW YORK
       ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                         5793
 
                              2001-2002 Regular Sessions
 
                    IN SENATE
 
                                  September 17, 2001
                                      ___________
 
       Introduced  by  Sen.  VOLKER  -- (at request of the Attorney General) --
         read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to  be  committed  to
         the Committee on Rules
 
       AN  ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to interception
         of communications in cases of terrorism; and providing for the  repeal
         of such provisions upon expiration thereof
 
         The  People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-
       bly, do enact as follows:
 
    1    Section 1. The criminal procedure law  is  amended  by  adding  a  new
    2  section 700.75 to read as follows:
    3  § 700.75 Roving interceptions.
    4    In  any  case  in which the designated offense is defined in paragraph
    5  (q) of subdivision eight of section 700.05 of this article, the require-
    6  ments of this article relating to the specification  of  the  facilities
    7  from  which,  or the place where, the communication is to be intercepted
    8  do not apply if:
    9    1. In the case of an application  for  the  interception  of  an  oral
   10  communication:
   11    (a)  the  application contains a full and complete statement as to why
   12  such specification is not practical and identifies the person committing
   13  the offense whose communications are to be intercepted; and
   14    (b) the court finds that such specification is not practical; or
   15    2. In the case of an application with respect  to  interception  of  a
   16  wire or electronic communication:
   17    (a)  the  application  identifies the person believed to be committing
   18  the offense and whose communications  are  to  be  intercepted  and  the
   19  applicant  makes  a showing of a purpose, on the part of that person, to
   20  thwart interception by changing facilities; and
   21    (b) the court finds that such purpose has been adequately shown.
   22    3. Interception of communications under an order  issued  pursuant  to
   23  this  section  shall  not  begin until the facilities from which, or the
 
        EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                             [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                                  LBD01625-04-1

       S. 5793                             2
 
    1  place where, the communication is to be intercepted  is  ascertained  by
    2  the  person  implementing  the interception order. A provider of wire or
    3  electronic communications service that has received an order as provided
    4  for  in  subdivision two of this section may move the court to modify or
    5  quash the order on the grounds that its assistance with respect  to  the
    6  interception  cannot be performed in a timely or reasonable fashion. The
    7  court, upon notice to the applicant,  shall  decide  such  motion  expe-
    8  ditiously.
    9    §  2.  This act shall take effect on the same date as a chapter of the
   10  laws of 2001 enacting the "anti-terrorism act of 2001", as  proposed  in
   11  second  extraordinary  session  legislative bills numbers S. 2 and A. 2,
   12  takes effect, and shall expire and be deemed repealed 2 years after such
   13  effective date.
 

SPONSORS MEMO:
                                   NEW YORK STATE SENATE
                           INTRODUCER'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
                           submitted in accordance with Senate Rule VI. Sec 1

 
BILL NUMBER: S5793
 
SPONSOR: VOLKER

 
TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in
relation to interception of communications in cases of terrorism; and
providing for the repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof
 
 
PURPOSE:  This bill authorizes eavesdropping warrants providing for a
"roving" wiretap or oral intercept order.
 
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:  This bill adds a new section 700.75 to the
Criminal Procedure Law to authorize roving wiretaps in cases of
suspected activities involving crimes of terrorism as defined in Penal
Law Article 490, if the court finds that specificity as to location is
not practical.
 
 
EXISTING LAW:  There is no current authorization for "roving" eaves-
dropping devices.
 
 
JUSTIFICATION:  In many instances it is not practical to require
applicants for eavesdropping warrants to particularize the proposed
location of a listening device, or to specify the telephone or other
instrument to be tapped. For example, ordinary specification require-
ments are not realistic where a suspect moves among rooms in a hotel to
avoid an eavesdropping device, or sets up a meeting with another suspect
at an outdoor location or uses a variety of phones to avoid inter-
ception. Unfortunately, when suspects change locations or switch phones
to thwart surveillance, evidence of incriminating communications is lost
while the government is securing an additional warrant.
 
This bill addresses this problem by permitting the issuance of "roving"
wiretap and oral intercept orders. Such an order can authorize installa-
tion of several listening devices, or the installation of wiretapping
equipment on several telephones, and permit interception of a targeted
conversation when an individual under surveillance communicates with
another person. This bill will allow investigators to react promptly and
effectively to counter-surveillance measures by obviating the need to
obtain separate warrants for each new location or instrument. However,
the government would not be permitted to intercept every conversation on
all listening devices or wiretaps installed pursuant to a roving
warrant, and instead interception will be permitted to occur only after
it is determined that the suspect is engaged in a targeted conversation.
 
The bill imposes stricter requirements for securing a roving warrant
than currently exist for securing other eavesdropping warrants.  Specif-
ically, standard limitations on eavesdropping, including a showing of
necessity and minimization, would apply to roving warrants. Before a
roving warrant could be issued, however, the government also would be
required to identify the suspect who is expected to engage in targeted
conversations, and show that particularization would be impractical (for
oral intercepts) or that the suspect has demonstrated a purpose to
thwart surveillance (for wire/electronic intercepts). In recognition
that a telephone company may not be able to respond instantaneously to a
target line designation, failure to specify the number of phones that
may be covered or the geographic area of the target lines that may be
used by the person under surveillance could be considered evidence of
unreasonableness or untimeliness in determining a motion to quash.
 
 
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:  Similar legislation was introduced in 1999-2000,
and in 2001.
 
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:  None.
 
 
LOCAL FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:  None.
 
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:  Same date as Chapter 300 of the Laws of 2001 (Septem-
ber 17, 2001), and shall expire two years thereafter.