4.3

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 4.3Wiretap Evidence and Other Electronic Information (Stingray and Triggerfish Devices)

See also § 3.1.13 “Transmitters, Beepers (Tracking Devices) and GPS on Vehicles, Boats and Airplanes.”

1. Arizona Wiretaps. For discussion of wiretap law (necessity and minimization), seeState v. Ring, 200 Ariz. 267, 25 P.3d 1139 (2001), overruled on other grounds, 534 U.S. 1103 (2002). Seealso A.R.S. §§ 13-3001 to 3019. See also A.R.S. 13-3925(E) (good faith exception does not apply to “unlawful electronic eavesdropping or wiretapping”).

In State v. Hausner, 230 Ariz. 60, 280 P.3d 604 (2012), the defendant and Dieteman engaged in a series of random shootings between June 2005 and August 2006 that killed six people, wounded 18 others, and injured or killed several dogs and a horse. A jury convicted the defendant of 80 offenses, including six counts of first-degree murder, and sentenced him to death for each of the murders. Among other issues, the Arizona Supreme Court analyzed whether a wiretap was illegally obtained. The defendant argued that the emergency wiretaps of his home and car were illegal because: (1) there was no emergency; (2) the wiretaps did not meet statutory requirements; and (3) they violated Article 2, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution. The Arizona Supreme Court found that an emergency existed because there had been a shooting days before the wiretap and the defendant had been trolling for victims at a significant time. The court rejected the defendant’s claim that the emergency could have been avoided if police arrested Dieteman, noting that police had insufficient evidence to arrest Dieteman, and even if they had probable cause, police are under no constitutional duty to arrest someone once they have the minimum evidence to establish probable cause to arrest. The court also rejected the defendant’s due diligence argument, noting that a due diligence requirement is implicit in A.R.S. § 13-3015, under which the wiretap was obtained. The court noted that the trial court need not have considered whether the county attorney approved the wiretap for investigative purposes. Finally, the court also found that the warrant supported the officer’s entry into Hausner’s home to place the wiretap, and exigent circumstances existed to justify the recording of conversations because the statutory requirements of § 13-3010 were met.

2. Federal Wiretaps. For federal wiretapping statutes and Title III requirements, see 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq. See also...