Whether evidence flowing from wiretap information should be suppressed if the wiretap warrant specified a phone number that is changed before the line is actually tapped.

No. Although specificity is required for wiretap applications, there is no requirement that a warrant state a particular phone number, and so a change in number does not affect the validity of the wiretap warrant.

In August of 1997, the Syracuse Police Department applied for a wiretap warrant for the only phone wire leading to the residence at 1009 Carbon Street, owned by Defendant Anthony Vaccaro's grandfather, in furtherance of a local drug trafficking investigation. On December 12, 1997, an Onondaga County Court Judge signed the warrant designating (315) 422-2003 as the phone number to be tapped. When an investigator reached the residence to install the wiretap, he learned that the phone number had been recently changed to (315) 422-0084. The investigator went through with the wiretap after confirming the new number was also listed to the grandfather. From information received through the wiretap, the police learned of Defendant Dana Darling's plan to transport cocaine on December 21, 1997. Pursuant to that information, the police arrested both Defendants.

After Defendants were indicted for sale and possession of controlled substances, both moved to suppress the evidence obtained through the wiretap because the warrant specified a different number than the one tapped. Defendants claimed that the police could not legally tap the second number without first obtaining a new warrant. The suppression court agreed with Defendants, and held that all of the evidence was based on illegally obtained communications. The People appealed, arguing that the original authorization to tap switched immediately to the new number on the same line. The Appellate Division reversed the suppression court's order, allowing the evidence even though the phone number had been changed. The Court of Appeals granted both Defendants leave to appeal, and affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence need not be suppressed, notwithstanding the telephone number change.

C.P.L. Article 700 governs New York's electronic surveillance law, regulating wiretapping as well as the procedures to suppress wiretap evidence when the law's requirements are not fulfilled. While evidence must be surpressed when the requirements are not followed, Defendants failed to show that the warrant did not comply. Firstly, although the wiretap application must specify the nature and location of the facilities to be tapped, there is no requirement that it specify a telephone number. Here, the warrant fulfilled the requirements, listing the address of the home and stating that the wiretap was to be placed on the only line running to the home. Secondly, although Defendants argue that the change in number resulted in an execution beyond the terms of the warrant, the change in telephone number was not in breach of the particularity requirement. There was no evidence that the investigator did not obey the motion judge's directive. Moreover, no different privacy interests were affected by the wiretap of the changed telephone number. Although the number of the telephone line changed there was no change on the already-established probable cause.