Ventura County Wiretaps Successfully Challenged – Case Dismissed
Note: This article does not constitute legal advice. The materials should be used for information purposes only. Wiretap litigation is extremely complex. You should contact a competent criminal defense lawyer immediately if you are arrested following an investigation built upon wiretap evidence.
Attorney William Haney recently defended a client charged with narcotics violations stemming from a series of Ventura County wiretaps. The Ventura County Superior Court dismissed the felony narcotics action in November 2019. The dismissal followed years of litigation, highly contested discovery motions and an utterly meticulous review of law enforcement records.
Wiretap cases are difficult to challenge for both legal and practical reasons. Because federal law establishes the minimum standard for all state and federal wiretaps, attorneys must be familiar with a wide body of federal case law.1 The District Attorney’s wiretap application and all orders signed by the court must be carefully scrutinized to ensure that the electronic intercept order was issued in accordance with statutory and constitutional guidelines. Effective wiretap challenges require meticulous preparation and an exhaustive review of the voluminous documents and police reports underlying the court’s intercept order.
About the Author:
Attorney William Haney formerly served as a supervising prosecutor and major crimes attorney in the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office. From 2005 to 2009, Mr. Haney supervised all major narcotics and general felony prosecutions in Ventura County. William Haney now provides criminal defense services to individuals facing misdemeanor and felony charges in the Ventura County Superior Court. Mr. Haney believes that it is the duty of every criminal defense lawyer to aggressively challenge all forms of electronic and mass surveillance utilized by the government. Attorneys provide a vital service to society by ensuring that law enforcement tactics remain within statutory and constitutional guidelines.
(1) People v. Roberts (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1166. When interpreting a wiretapping scheme, the reviewing court may look for guidance from Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.