702-623-6362 
Most people expect that their private communications will be kept private and confidential. Sometimes, however, wire or oral communications are intercepted. There are strict rules for when it is permissible to intercept private communications and for when evidence from intercepted communication can be used against those who were having a conversation. It is vital to understand these rules so you can try to fight to prevent evidence from being used against you if it was collected in violation of your legal rights.
LV Criminal Defense understands Nevada laws on intercepting communications, as well as state and federal laws protecting the privacy of defendants. Our legal team will carefully review the process by which communications were intercepted and the manner in which investigators or prosecutors utilize the information obtained from intercepted phone calls. Our goal is to help you avoid having evidence used against you that could be damaging to you if it was illegally obtained in violation of your fundamental privacy rights.
If oral or wire communication was intercepted and is admissible against you, we can also help you to provide explanations on statements that seem potentially incriminating and can also work with you in other ways to raise doubts about whether the intercepted communications are convincing evidence of wrongdoing.
Whatever the legal strategy that we help you to devise and implement, the goal of our Vegas defense firm is to make conviction less likely to occur and to reduce potential penalties that you could face. To find out more about how we can help you, talk to us today.
Nevada’s criminal code addresses interception of wire or oral communication in Nevada Revised Statutes sections 179.410 through 179.515. The laws related to the interception of wire and oral communications include:
Collectively, these rules aim to protect the privacy rights of defendants by imposing limitations on when and how communications can be intercepted and on how intercepted oral and wire communications can be used against the communicator.
Nick Wooldridge has a long track record of representing clients accused of serious federal and state crimes in Nevada.
While there are allowances made to permit law enforcement to listen in on conversations when there is probable cause to do so, it is vital to protect the competing interests of the state in finding evidence of wrongdoing with an individual right to be free from intrusive investigations into private matters. If any of the rules meant to protect your privacy and balance state and personal interests are violated, any evidence of wrongdoing obtained through the interception of communications should not be admissible in a court of law.
According to Nevada Revised Statutes section 179.475, any order authorizing the interception of oral or wire communications must provide specific details on when and how those communications can be intercepted. For example, the order authorizing communications to be intercepted must detail the identity of the person whose communications will be monitored and must explain the location and nature of the communications facilities that authority to intercept is granted for.
Orders must also contain descriptions of the suspected criminal offense justifying the interception of the communications and must include specific information about the kind of communication which law enforcement seeks to intercept. The authorization to intercept communications will also be made only for a limited period of time, and details must be provided on whether the interception of communications will end automatically once the communication that is being sought by the interception has been captured.
Court orders allowing for the interception of communications cannot authorize such interception for any longer than is necessary to achieve the goals that justify interception. Under no circumstances should a court order allow for communication to be intercepted for more than a 30 day period of time.
At the end of the 30 days, an extension of the order could be sought and granted. However, in order for the court to grant an extension of the authorization of communication, procedures set forth in N.R.S. 179.470 must be followed. N.R.S. 179.470 mandates, among other things, that a statement be submitted with an application for an extension of an order that explains the results currently obtained as a result of the intercepted communications. If no results have been obtained, the application for an extension must detail why progress has not been made.
When I initially met with Mr. Wooldridge, he took the opportunity to sit and go over my problem with me. He described details in my case which he found disturbing and explained why he I should have him on my side.
These laws, which impose specific mandates that law enforcement officers must comply with to obtain an order to intercept communications and which limit the duration of time that communications can be intercepted, are intended to ensure that a suspect’s private communication is not intercepted for long periods of time without proper justification.
Las Vegas criminal attorneys at LV Criminal Defense will help you to understand the laws for when communications can be intercepted and will assist you in fighting to keep evidence collected in intercepted communications from being used to secure a conviction. Our firm is familiar with criminal cases in which communication is introduced as evidence and we have helped many defendants faced with such evidence to fight for an acquittal or to reduce penalties by entering into a favorable plea deal.
To find out more about how our firm can help you, give us a call as soon as you come under investigation or as soon as you discover your communications have been intercepted. We’ll get to work immediately on fighting for the most favorable outcome possible given the specifics of your case.
