WIRETAP EVALUATION FORM

Reference No. _______ (Leave Blank - PD use only)

Defendant's Name: __________________________________ AKA_______________________________

Ask defendant name used on phone.

Case No. __________________________________________

Date of Arrest _______________________

Telephone Number(s) Tapped __________________________________________________________________

Other Telephone Numbers of Defendant __________________________________________________________

Attorney Information:

Name: __________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________

___________________________________________________

Telephone __________________________

WIRETAP DISCOVERY RECEIVED

Notice ___ Inventory ___ Police Chief Designation ___ Review by Chief Executive Officer ___

Signed Application ___ Signed Affidavits in Support of App.___ Exhibits ___

Signed Application For Extension ___ Signed Order ___ Signed Order to Utilities ___

All Extension Orders Signed ___ All 72 Hour Reports ___ Sealing Order ___

Order Delaying Notice (If past 90 days) ___ Wire Monitor Logs ___

Transcripts of Taped Interceptions ___ Tapes ___

Was a Pen Register Used? Yes No

Western States Information Network (WSIN) Provided? Yes No

Affidavit reflects arrests during pen register period? Yes No

Possible voice content acquired? Yes No

Document Flow Chart ___ Agent list w/contact numbers ___ Significant event chart/list ___

Wire Room Sign-in Sheet ___

End/shift instruction reports/lists ___ End/shift summary reports ___

Most called numbers list ___ Unknown subscriber list ___

P.O.S.T./AG CERTIFICATION in legal, practical, and technical aspects of wiretapping (PC § 629.94)

Officer making application. Recertification? Yes No

All officers conducting interceptions Recertification? Yes No

Officers using evidence in court Recertification? Yes No

Foreign language interpreter Recertification? Yes No

Designation of interpreter by the District Attorney (not Deputy DA.) (629.94)

PROOF TAPES WERE SEALED (PC § 629.64)

Seal present Yes No

Reasonable explanation for lack of seal. No Yes (State Reason)__________________

RECORDING REQUIREMENTS (PC § 629.64)

Was the recording metered? Yes No

Was Recording capable of immediate Authenticity? Yes No

[A device was created by in 1989 by Fred Adler, Attorney General's "Senior Photo-Electric Specialist," for compliance with California's Wiretap Law. (Electronic Surveillance Annual Report, (!990) p. 2.)]

Monitoring device precluded any interruption of monitoring. Yes No

Installation of Monitoring device precluded any interruption or monitoring. Yes No

Taping protected from editing or alterations. Yes No

JURISDICTION OF JUDGE

Date:___________________Judge __________________________________

Judge Signing Order was: P.J. of LA County Superior Courts Designated by PJ

Designated as "Backup" and:

Designated Judge Unavailable Yes No (Check no jurisdiction)

First Back-up Judge Unavailable Yes No (Check no jurisdiction)

No Jurisdiction

Number of Extensions Granted: _____

(Complete a separate evaluation form for each extension.)

EVALUATION OF ORDER

Requisite Provisions in Order (P.C. § 629.54)

All persons intercepted must be named or identified so complete one form for each:

Telephone Number __________________________________________________________

Target's Name or Identity ____________________________________________________

Nature and location of all facilities described as covers
House ___ Business ___ Cellular ___ DDP ___ Jail ___

Other ______________________________ Not described ___

Type of communication to be intercepted specified. Yes ___ Not specified ___

Illegal activities communications will relate to are specified Yes ___ Not specified ___

Order requires interception to begin as soon as practicable? Yes ___ Not specified ___

Order automatically terminates when communication was first obtained?
Yes ___ Not specified ___

Latest date for interception: __________________ More than 30 days ___ Not specified ___

Direct or indirect trespassing authorized? (Prohibited by §629.89)
No ___ Trespassing Impliedly Authorized ___

Mandates minimization of communications not subject to interception?
Yes ___ Not specified ___

Requires interpreter to have POST training and still minimize
Yes ___ Not specified ___

Required Findings? (P.C. § 629.52, 629.54)

Violation(s) alleged:

___ 1. H. & S. Code § 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, 11379.5 or 11379.6 or conspiracy to do same, and

More than 10 gal./3 lbs. of heroin, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamine, or analogs.

___ 2. Murder or solicitation to commit murder or conspiracy to do same.

___ 3. The commission of a crime involving the bombing of public or private property or conspiracy to do same.

___ 4. Aggravated kidnaping, or conspiracy to do same.

Probable Cause to believe an individual had been committing, had committed, or was committing above violation established? Yes ___ No ___

Yes ___ No ___ Probable cause to believe that particular communications concerning the illegal activities would be obtained through that interception?

Yes ___ No ___ Probable cause believe that the facilities had been or were about to be used in connection with the offense, or were leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by the person?

Yes ___ No ___ Normal investigation procedures had been tried and failed, or were reasonably unlikely to succeed or were too dangerous?

Notes of Irregularities:

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

APPLICATION EVALUATION (629.50)

Date of Application _____________________

The District Attorney (not a Deputy) made, authorized, and signed application. (§629.50.)
Yes ___ No ___

Name of person other than DA making, signing, authorizing: _______________________________

Application is signed under penalty of perjury. ___ Yes ___ Not under personal Oath

Type(s) of Intercept(s):

___ Hard line telephone wire ___ Jail Public Pay Phone

___ Digital Pager ( Order issued after 1996)

___ Public Pay Phone ___ Cellular Telephone ( Order issued after 1996) ___ Not Specified

Police Agency (Agencies) Designated as Participating: ___ Not Specified

_______________________________________________________________________

Identity of the law enforcement agency executing the order Not Specified

Agency Name:_________________________

Affiant's Name :_______________________

REVIEW OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Statement of review of the application and the circumstances in support thereof made by:

Chief Of Police Signed Name: ___________________________________ Dated:__________
Designee Signed Name: ________________________________________Dated:__________
Designation received & dated:___________________________
Designation refers to specific telephone numbers requested.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION

Name of Affiant: ________________________________
Agency ____________________________________

Officer had POST Wiretap Training: (629.94(b)) ___ Yes ___ No

"Conventional investigative techniques" tried and unsuccessful, unlikely to succeed, or too dangerous:

What investigation procedures were tried but failed.

Sources/informants ___ Yes ___ No Why ________________________________________

Search Warrants ___ Yes ___ No Why __________________________________________

Undercover ___ Yes ___ No Why _______________________________________________

Interviews of Suspects ___ Yes ___ No Why ___________________________________

Surveillance ___ Yes ___ No Why _____________________________________________

Trash Searches ___ Yes ___ No Why ____________________________________________

Pen Registers ___ Yes ___ No Why ____________________________________________

Other No ___ Yes What _________________ __________________________________

Reasons normal investigation procedures were reasonably unlikely to succeed or too dangerous?

______________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

INDIVIDUAL PROBABLE CAUSE (629.52)

For each telephone list facts in affidavit which show:

Facts establish probable cause to believe the facilities where telephone communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of the offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by the person whose communications are to be intercepted.

______________________________________________________________________________

Sufficient?: ___ Yes ___ No

Facts which probable cause to believe that particular communications concerning the illegal activities will be obtained through that interception,

______________________________________________________________________________

Sufficient?: ___ Yes ___ No

Automatic termination of order? ___ Yes ___ No Because following facts established probable cause to believe additional communications of same type would occur thereafter:

______________________________________________________________________________

Sufficient?: ___ Yes ___ No

Previous wiretaps, applications for wiretaps, or references to other wiretap? ___ No ___ Yes

Date: _________________________________ Judge: ________________________

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

Wiretap was reported to Attorney General ___ No ___ Yes AG# _____________________

Wiretap was reported to U.S. Courts ___ No ___ Yes

Federal Form Number _________________________________

Notes of Irregularities:

______________________________________________________________________________

EXTENSIONS OF WIRETAP ORDER

Extension #_____ of _____

Date Original Order Granted: _______________________

Date Original Order Expired: _______________________

Date of Application for Extension Submitted: ______________________

Within 30 Days? ___ Yes ___ No

Extension applied for by DA (not DDA) ___Yes ___No : Name __________________________

Date Extension Granted: _______________________

Date Extension Expired: _______________________

Name of Judge Issuing Original Order: ___________________________________________________

Name of Judge Granting Extension: ___________________________________________________

Judge was: ___ P.J.? ___ Designee ___ Back-up ___ 2^nd Back-Up

Judge had Jurisdiction ___ Yes ___ No

Results claimed from interception or reasonable explanation for failure to obtain results:

______________________________________________________________________________

Sufficient?: ___ Yes ___ No

Content of interceptions (tapes/logs) match application for extension? ___ Yes ___ No

Facts showing an extension was "necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization?" (P.C. §629.58)

______________________________________________________________________________

Sufficient?: ___ Yes ___ No

Facts establishing probable cause to believe that particular communications concerning the illegal activities would be obtained through that interception?

______________________________________________________________________________

Sufficient?: ___ Yes ___ No

Facts establishing probable cause to believe that the facilities are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of the offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by the person whose communications are to be intercepted.

______________________________________________________________________________

Sufficient?: ___ Yes ___ No

Were new numbers are added in the extension? ___ No ___ Yes

What investigation procedures were tried before making the application for new number:

Sources/informants ___ Yes ___ No Why ___________________________________________

Search Warrants ___ Yes ___ No Why _____________________________________________

Undercover ___ Yes ___ No Why __________________________________________________

Interviews of Suspects ___ Yes ___ No Why ____________________________________

Surveillance ___ Yes ___ No Why ______________________________________________

Trash Searches ___ Yes ___ No Why ______________________________________________

Pen Registers ___ Yes ___ No Why ______________________________________________

Other ___ No ___ Yes __________________________________________________________

Reasons normal investigation procedures were reasonably unlikely to succeed or too dangerous?

______________________________________________________________________________

Sufficient?: ___ Yes ___ No

Extension Order

Were the following findings specifically made: (P.C. §629.52)

___ Yes ___ No Probable cause existed to believe that particular communications concerning the illegal activities would be obtained through that interception?

___ Yes ___ No Probable cause existed to believe that the facilities had been or were about to be used in connection with the offense, or were leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by the person?

___ Yes ___ No Normal investigation procedures were tried but failed, or were reasonably unlikely to succeed or were too dangerous?

___ Yes ___ No Was an extension properly granted? (P.C. §629.50)

Notes of Irregularities:

______________________________________________________________________________

COMMUNICATIONS

Number of communications Intercepted: _________

Number of communications Minimized: ________

Number of communications which should have been Minimized: ___________

Number of Incriminating Communications: _____________

Were privileged communications intercepted? (629.80) ___ No ___ Yes

Number of Privileged Communications: _____________

30 second on - 2 minute off rule complied with? ___ No ___ Yes

Type : Attorney Physician Psychologist Religious Marital Counselor

Evidence of a "Hand-off:"

Date: ___________ Name: ___________________________

Telephone Number: ______________________

The following information was found at page ____: ______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Date: ___________ Name: ___________________________

Telephone Number: ______________________

The following information was found at page ____: ______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Date: ___________ Name: ___________________________

Telephone Number: ______________________

The following information was found at page ____: ______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Date: ___________ Name: ___________________________

Telephone Number: ______________________

The following information was found at page ____: ______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Date: ___________ Name: ___________________________

Telephone Number: ______________________

The following information was found at page ____: ______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

TELEPHONE NUMBERS ORDERED INTERCEPTED

Additional Page _____ of _____

Telephone Number __________________________