The indictment alleged that in Kings County, Schneider and his accomplices received illegal sports wagers on his gambling website. The wiretapping failed to turn up evidence that Schneider made or received calls to or from anyone located in Kings County, but he was indicted, along with seven others, for enterprise corruption, promoting gambling and related crimes. Nevertheless, the NY Supreme Court issued the warrant and the wiretap commenced. However, New York was not among the states listed, and the warrant application did not suggest that Schneider had communicated by phone with anyone located in New York. The warrant application described Schneider’s business as “national in scope,” noting that he had placed calls to numbers in California, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Hawaii, and Nevada. Instead, the People summarized four conversations between Schneider and a New Jersey-based bookmaker as evidence that Schneider operated a gambling website. The evidence against Schneider consisted of conversations recorded over the course of a six-month wiretap investigation beginning in December 2015, although the warrant applications did not allege that Schneider had any contact with the state of NY or that he had any customers in NY. Police in Kings County conducted a two-year investigation into the illegal gambling enterprise. § 2516(2) and CPL article 700.05(4), eavesdropping warrants are “executed” in the geographical jurisdiction where the communications are rerouted, heard, and accessed by authorized law enforcement, and that the Brooklyn Judge, in this case, had jurisdiction to issue to warrant on cell phones in California because, although the calling and receiving cell phones were outside of New York, the calls were rerouted by the phone company to Brooklyn and first listened to in Brooklyn.ĭefendant Joseph Schneider is a lifelong resident of California who operated his own gambling website. The Court of Appeals held that under both 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2), of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and under New York’s CPL article 700.05(4) on a mobile phones located outside of New York State when all calls originate and terminate outside of New York.Įavesdropping Warrants are ‘Executed’ Where and When the Listening Occurs Whether a New York State Supreme Court Justice had authority to issue wiretap orders under Title III’s enabling statute, 18 U.S.C. Issue: Do New York Judges Have National Authority to Wiretap Cell Phones?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |