Dahda v. United States
Issues
Must a court exclude evidence obtained by wiretapping, solely because the judge issuing the wiretapping warrant exceeded his or her territorial jurisdiction?
In this case the Supreme Court will determine if evidence obtained by wiretapping while investigators were outside the state where the authorizing judge sits is admissible in court. Petitioners Los and Roosevelt Dahda were arrested, charged, and convicted in a conspiracy to distribute over two thousand pounds of marijuana. Most of the evidence used against them was obtained by wiretapping phones. A judge in Kansas authorized the wiretap, including wiretaps both inside and outside Kansas. The Dahda brothers argue that the judge had no authority to authorize interception outside Kansas and that, therefore, the entire warrant is deficient under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and all the evidence obtained from wiretaps cannot be used against them at trial. The Government agrees that the warrant was overbroad, but claims that the warrant was not wholly deficient and thus the Government should be allowed to present the evidence obtained from wiretaps within Kansas. Much is at stake in this case: organizations supporting the Dahda brothers claim a ruling for the Government would undermine personal privacy. The Government disagrees, asserting that no privacy concerns are implicated.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520, required suppression of communications that were intercepted within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court, pursuant to a wiretap order that permitted interceptions to take place outside the jurisdiction of the issuing court.
Petitioners, twin brothers Los and Roosevelt Dahda (collectively “the Dahda brothers”), joined a drug-distribution network as importers and dealers. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, at 3a, 35a. Los was responsible for driving money from Kansas to California to help a co-conspirator purchase marijuana. Id. at 3a–4a.
Written by
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Robert Barnes, Supreme Court to Consider Major Digital Privacy Case on Microsoft Email Storage, Wash. Post (Oct. 16, 2017).
- OT2017 #4: “Wind, Diabetes & Voluntary Retirement”, SCOTUSBlog, (Oct. 30, 2017).