                                 CODE OF VIRGINIA

APPLICATION FOR AND ISSUANCE OF ORDER AUTHORIZING INTERCEPTION; CONTENTS OF
ORDER; RECORDING AND RETENTION OF INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS, APPLICATIONS AND
ORDERS; NOTICE TO PARTIES; INTRODUCTION IN EVIDENCE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED (§
19.2-68)

A. Each application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire,
electronic or oral communication shall be made in writing upon oath or
affirmation to the appropriate judge of competent jurisdiction and shall state
the applicant&#8217;s authority to make such application. Each application shall
be verified by the Attorney General to the best of his knowledge and belief and
shall include the following information:

   1. The identity of the attorney for the Commonwealth and law-enforcement
   officer who requested the Attorney General to apply for such order;

   2. A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by
   the applicant to justify his belief that an order should be issued, including
   (i) details as to the particular offense that has been, is being or is about
   to be committed, (ii) except as provided in subsection I, a particular
   description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the
   place where the communication is to be intercepted, (iii) a particular
   description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted, (iv) the
   identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose
   communications are to be intercepted;

   3. A full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative
   procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be
   unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous;

   4. A statement of the period of time for which the interception is required to
   be maintained. If the nature of the investigation is such that the
   authorization for interception should not automatically terminate when the
   described type of communication has been first obtained, a particular
   description of facts establishing probable cause to believe that additional
   communications of the same type will occur thereafter;

   5. A full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous
   applications known to the individual authorizing and making the application,
   made to any judge for authorization to intercept wire, electronic or oral
   communications involving any of the same persons, facilities or places
   specified in the application, and the action taken by the judge on each such
   application;

   6. Where the application is for the extension of an order, a statement setting
   forth the results thus far obtained from the interception, or a reasonable
   explanation of the failure to obtain such results; and

   7. If authorization is requested for observation or monitoring by a police
   department of a county or city, by a sheriff&#8217;s office, or by
   law-enforcement officers of the United States, a statement containing the name
   of the police department, sheriff&#8217;s office, or United States agency and
   an explanation of the reasons such observation or monitoring is necessary.
   				The judge may require the applicant to furnish additional testimony or
   documentary evidence in support of the application.

B. Upon such application the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or
as modified, authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications
if the judge determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant
that:

   1. There is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has
   committed or is about to commit an offense enumerated in &#xA7; 19.2-66 of
   this chapter;

   2. There is probable cause for belief that particular communications
   concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception;

   3. Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, or
   reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried, or to be too dangerous;
   and interception under this chapter is the only alternative investigative
   procedure available;

   4. Except as provided in subsection I, there is probable cause for belief that
   the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, electronic or oral
   communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used,
   in connection with the commission of such offense, or are leased to, listed in
   the name of, or commonly used by such person;

   5. A wire, electronic or oral communication authorized to be intercepted
   pursuant to this section may be monitored at any location within the
   Commonwealth of Virginia.

C. Each order authorizing the interception of any wire, electronic or oral
communication shall specify:

   1. The identity of the person, if known, whose communications are to be
   intercepted;

   2. The nature and location of the communications facilities as to which, or
   the place where, authority to intercept is granted;

   3. A particular description of the type of communication sought to be
   intercepted, and a statement of the particular offense enumerated in &#xA7;
   19.2-66 to which it relates;

   4. That such interception is to be conducted only by the Department of State
   Police;

   5. If observation or monitoring by the police department of a county or city,
   by a sheriff&#8217;s office, or by law-enforcement officers of the United
   States is authorized, only that police department, sheriff&#8217;s office, or
   agency or the officers from any police department of a town which originated
   the investigation leading to the application shall observe or monitor the
   interception; and

   6. The period of time during which such interception is authorized, including
   a statement as to whether or not the interception shall automatically
   terminate when the described communication has been first obtained.
   				An order authorizing the interception of a wire, electronic or oral
   communication shall, upon request of the applicant, direct that a provider of
   wire or electronic communications service, landlord, custodian or other person
   shall furnish the Department of State Police forthwith all information,
   facilities and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception
   unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that such
   service provider, landlord, custodian or person is providing the person whose
   communications are to be intercepted. Any provider of wire or electronic
   communications service, landlord, custodian or other person furnishing such
   facilities or technical assistance shall be compensated therefor by the
   Commonwealth for reasonable and actual expenses incurred in providing such
   facilities or assistance, to be paid out of the criminal fund.

D. No order entered under this section may authorize the interception of any
wire, electronic or oral communication for any period longer than is necessary
to achieve the objective of the authorization, nor in any event longer than 30
days which period begins to run on the earlier of the day on which the
investigative or law-enforcement officer begins to conduct an interception under
the order or 10 days after the date of entry of the order. Extensions of an
order may be granted, but only upon application for an extension made in
accordance with subsection A of this section and the court&#8217;s making the
findings required by subsection B of this section. The period of extension shall
be no longer than the authorizing judge deems necessary to achieve the purposes
for which it was granted and in no event for longer than 30 days. Every order
and extension thereof shall contain a provision that the authorization to
intercept shall be executed as soon as practicable, shall be conducted in such a
way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to
interception under this chapter, and must terminate upon attainment of the
authorized objective, or in any event in 30 days. In the event the intercepted
communication is in a code or foreign language, and an expert in that foreign
language or code is not reasonably available during the interception period,
minimization may be accomplished as soon as practicable after such interception.

E. Whenever an order authorizing interception is entered pursuant to this
chapter, the order shall require reports to be made to the judge who issued the
order showing what progress has been made toward achievement of the authorized
objective and the need for continued interception. Such reports shall be made at
such intervals as the judge shall require.

F. 1. The contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication intercepted by
any means authorized by this chapter shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or
wire or other comparable device. Should it not be possible to record the
intercepted communication, a detailed resume of such communication shall
forthwith be reduced to writing and filed with the court. The recording of the
contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication under this subsection
shall be done in such way as will protect the recording from editing or other
alterations and shall not be duplicated except upon order of the court as
hereafter provided. Immediately upon the expiration of the period of the order,
or extensions thereof, such recording or detailed resume shall be made available
to the judge issuing such order and sealed under his directions. Custody of any
recordings or detailed resumes shall be vested with the court and shall not be
destroyed for a period of 10 years from the date of the order and then only by
direction of the court; provided, however, should any interception fail to
reveal any information related to the offense or offenses for which it was
authorized, such recording or resume shall be destroyed after the expiration of
60 days after the notice required by subdivision 4 of this subsection is served.
Duplicate recordings may be made for use or disclosure pursuant to the
provisions of subsections A and B of § 19.2-67 for investigations. The presence
of the seal provided for by this subsection, or a satisfactory explanation for
the absence thereof, shall be a prerequisite for the use or disclosure of the
contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication or evidence derived
therefrom under subsection C of § 19.2-67.

   2. Applications made and orders granted or denied under this chapter shall be
   sealed by the judge. Custody of the applications and orders shall be wherever
   the judge directs. Such applications and orders shall be disclosed only upon a
   showing of good cause before a judge of competent jurisdiction and shall not
   be destroyed except on order of the issuing or denying judge, and in any event
   shall be kept for 10 years.

   3. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punished as
   contempt of the issuing or denying court.

   4. Within a reasonable time but not later than 90 days after the filing of an
   application for an order of authorization which is denied or the termination
   of the period of an order or extensions thereof, the issuing or denying judge
   shall cause to be served, on the persons named in the order or the
   application, and such other parties to intercepted communications as the judge
   may determine in his discretion that is in the interest of justice, an
   inventory which shall include notice of:

      a. The fact of the entry of the order or the application;

      b. The date of the entry and the period of authorized interception, or the
      denial of the application;

      c. The fact that during the period wire, electronic or oral communications
      were or were not intercepted; and

      d. The fact that unless he files a motion with the court within 60 days
      after the service of notice upon him, the recordation or resume may be
      destroyed in accordance with subdivision 1 of this subsection.
      					The judge, upon the filing of a motion, shall make available to such
      person or his counsel for inspection the intercepted communications,
      applications and orders. The serving of the inventory required by this
      subsection may be postponed for additional periods, not to exceed 30 days
      each, upon the ex parte showing of good cause to a judge of competent
      jurisdiction.

G. The contents of any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication or
evidence derived therefrom shall not be received in evidence or otherwise
disclosed in any trial, hearing or other proceeding in a state court unless each
party to the communication and to such proceeding, not less than 10 days before
the trial, hearing or proceeding, has been furnished with a copy of the court
order, accompanying application under which the interception was authorized and
the contents of any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication that is
to be used in any trial, hearing or other proceeding in a state court. This
10-day period may be waived by the judge if he finds that it was not possible to
furnish the party with the above information 10 days before the trial, hearing
or proceeding and that the party will not be prejudiced by the delay in
receiving such information; provided that such information in any event shall be
given prior to the day of the trial, and the inability to comply with such
10-day period shall be grounds for the granting of a continuance to either
party.
			The judge who considers an application for an interception under this
chapter, whether issuing or denying the order, shall be disqualified from
presiding at any trial resulting from or in any manner connected with such
interception, regardless of whether the evidence acquired thereby is used in
such trial.

H. Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing or proceeding in or before any
court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body or other authority of the
Commonwealth, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to suppress the
contents of any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence
derived therefrom, on the grounds that:

   1. The communication was unlawfully intercepted, or was not intercepted in
   compliance with this chapter; or

   2. The order of the authorization or approval under which it was intercepted
   is insufficient on its face; or

   3. The interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization
   or approval; or

   4. The interception is not admissible into evidence in any trial, proceeding
   or hearing in a state court under the applicable rules of evidence.
   				Such motion shall be made before the trial, hearing or proceeding unless
   there was no opportunity to make such motion or the person was not aware of
   the grounds of the motion. If the motion is granted pursuant to subdivision 1,
   2 or 3 of this subsection, the contents of the intercepted wire, electronic or
   oral communication or evidence derived therefrom shall be treated as having
   been obtained in violation of this chapter. The judge, upon the filing of such
   motion by the aggrieved person, shall make available to the aggrieved person,
   or his counsel, for inspection the intercepted communication.

I. The requirements of subdivision 2 of subsection A and subdivision 4 of
subsection B of this section relating to the specification of the facilities
from which, or the place where, the communication is to be intercepted do not
apply if:

   1. In the case of an application with respect to the interception of an oral
   communication:

      a. The application contains a full and complete statement as to why such
      specification is not practical and identifies the person committing the
      offense and whose communications are to be intercepted; and

      b. The judge finds that such specification is not practical; or

   2. In the case of an application with respect to a wire or electronic
   communication:

      a. the application identifies the person believed to be committing the
      offense and whose communications are to be intercepted and the applicant
      makes a showing of a purpose, on the part of that person, to thwart
      interception by changing facilities; and

      b. the judge finds that such purpose has been adequately shown.
      					The interception of a communication under an order issued pursuant to
      this subsection shall not begin until the facilities from which, or the
      place where, the communication is to be intercepted is ascertained by the
      person implementing the interception order. A provider of wire or electronic
      communications service that has received an order issued pursuant to this
      subdivision 2 may move the court to modify or quash the order on the ground
      that its assistance with respect to the interception cannot be performed in
      a timely or reasonable fashion. The court, upon notice to the Attorney
      General, shall decide the motion expeditiously.

HISTORY: Code 1950, § 19.1-89.8; 1973, c. 442; 1975, c. 495; 1976, c. 163;
1977, c. 335; 1979, c. 602; 1980, c. 244; 1988, c. 889; 2002, c. 91; 2005, c.
934; 2013, cc. 448, 664.