The use of wiretaps by law enforcement officers to intercept the content of communications is governed by Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as amended, 18 USC § 2510 et seq.1 Generally speaking, investigators may employ wiretaps only when they are authorized to do so by court order,2 see 18 USC § 2518 1—6, and upon the expiration of such an order, the investigators must immediately present recordings of any intercepted communications to the court to be sealed. 18 USC § 2518 8 a. If recordings are not presented immediately for sealing, the government may not use or disclose the content of any intercepted communication or any evidence derived therefrom in a judicial proceeding, unless there appears a satisfactory explanation for the failure to make an immediate presentation of the recordings. Id.3 A satisfactory explanation is one that explains not only why a delay occurred but also why it is excusable. United States v. Ojeda Rios, 495 U. S. 257, 265 110 SCt 1845, 109 LE2d 224 1990. This case concerns the adequacy of an explanation offered by the State for its failure to immediately present recordings of communications intercepted under a Title III order so that the recordings could be sealed.
In February 2008, prosecuting attorneys applied to a judge of the superior court for a Title III order authorizing investigators to intercept oral and electronic communications transmitted to and from a wireless phone used by Benjamin Finney. At the time of the application, investigators believed that Finney was involved in the distribution of cocaine and other controlled substances in Jones County, and they also suspected that he had been involved in the recent killing of Gwendolyn Cole in Bibb County. On February 8, the judge granted the application and entered an order authorizing investigators to intercept Finney’s communications for a period of 30 days. On March 7, another judge of the superior court entered an order extending the authorization through April 7. Investigators ceased their interception of communications on March 20, but recordings of the intercepted communications were not presented for sealing until April 23, sixteen days after the expiration of the Title III authorization.
