(1) Each application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation or by means of an oral affidavit as provided for in the Idaho Rules of Criminal Practice & Procedure to a judge of competent jurisdiction and shall state the applicant’s authority to make such application. Each application shall include the following information:
(a) The identity of the individual authorized to make application for said order pursuant to section 18-6706, Idaho Code;
(b) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify his belief that an order should be issued including (i) details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed, (ii) except as provided in subsection (11) of this section, a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted, (iii) a particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted, (iv) the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted;
(c) A full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous;
(d) A statement of the period of time for which the interception is required to be maintained. If the nature of the investigation is such that the authorization for interception should not automatically terminate when the described type of communication has been first obtained, a particular description of facts establishing probable cause to believe that additional communications of the same type will occur thereafter;
(e) A full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications known to the individual making the applications, made to any judge for authorization to intercept wire, electronic or oral communications involving any of the same persons, facilities or places specified in the application, and the action taken by the judge on each such application; and
(f) Where the application is for the extension of an order, a statement setting forth the results thus far obtained from the interception, or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain such results.
(2) The judge may require the applicant to furnish additional testimony or documentary evidence in support of the application.
(3) Upon such application the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or as modified, authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications within the state of Idaho if the judge determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that:
(a) There is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in section 18-6706, Idaho Code;
(b) There is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception;
(c) Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous;
(d) Except as provided in subsection (11) of this section, there is probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, electronic or oral communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of such offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by such person.
(4) Each order authorizing the interception of any wire, electronic or oral communication shall specify:
(a) The identity of the person, if known, whose communications are to be intercepted;
(b) The nature and location of the communications facilities as to which, or the place where, authority to intercept is granted;
(c) A particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted, and a statement of the particular offense to which it relates;
(d) The identity of the agency authorized to intercept the communications, and of the person making the application; and
(e) The period of time during which such interception is authorized, including a statement as to whether or not the interception shall automatically terminate when the described communication has been first obtained.
(5) An order authorizing the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication shall, upon request of the applicant, direct that a provider of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person shall furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that such service provider, landlord, custodian or person is providing the person whose communications are to be intercepted. Any provider of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian or other person furnishing such facilities or technical assistance shall be compensated therefor by the applicant for reasonable expenses incurred in providing such facilities or assistance.
(6) No order entered under this section may authorize the interception of any wire, electronic or oral communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, nor in any event longer than thirty (30) days. Such thirty (30) day period begins on the earlier of the day on which the investigative or law enforcement officer begins to conduct an interception under the order or ten (10) days after the order is entered. Extensions of an order may be granted, but only upon application for an extension made in accordance with subsection (1) of this section and the court making the findings required by subsection (3) of this section. The periods of extension shall be no longer than the authorizing court deems necessary to achieve the purposes for which it was granted and in no event for longer than thirty (30) days for each extension. Every order and extension thereof shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept shall be executed as soon as practicable, shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under this chapter, and must terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective, or in any event in thirty (30) days. In the event the intercepted communication is in a code or foreign language and an expert in that foreign language or code is not reasonably available during the interception period, minimization may be accomplished as soon as practicable after such interception. An interception under this chapter may be conducted in whole or in part by government personnel or by an individual operating under a contract with federal, state or local government and acting under the supervision of an investigative or law enforcement officer authorized to conduct the interception.
(7) Whenever an order authorizing interception is entered pursuant to this chapter, the order may require reports to be made to the judge who issued the order showing what progress has been made toward achievement of the authorized objective and the need for continued interception. Such reports shall be made at such intervals as the judge may require.
(8) (a) The contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication intercepted by any means authorized by this chapter shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device. The recording of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication under this subsection shall be done in such way as will protect the recording from editing or other alterations. Immediately upon the expiration of the period of the order, or extensions thereof, such recordings shall be made available to the judge issuing such order and sealed under his directions. Custody of the recordings shall be wherever the judge orders. They shall not be destroyed except upon an order of the issuing or denying court and in any event shall be kept for ten (10) years. Duplicate recordings may be made for use or disclosure pursuant to the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of section 18-6707, Idaho Code, for investigations. The presence of the seal provided for by this subsection, or a satisfactory explanation for the absence thereof, shall be a prerequisite for the use or disclosure of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom under subsection (3) of section 18-6707, Idaho Code.
(b) Applications made and orders granted under this chapter shall be sealed by the judge. Custody of the applications and orders shall be wherever the judge directs. Such applications and orders shall be disclosed only upon a showing of good cause before a judge of competent jurisdiction and shall not be destroyed except on order of the issuing or denying judge and in any event shall be kept for ten (10) years.
(c) Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punished as contempt of the issuing or denying judge.
(d) Within a reasonable time but not later than ninety (90) days after the filing of an application for an order of approval under this section which is denied or the termination of the period of an order or extensions thereof, the issuing or denying judge shall cause to be served, on the persons named in the order or the application, and such other parties to intercepted communications as the judge may determine in his discretion that is in the interest of justice, an inventory which shall include notice of:
(1) The fact of the entry of the order or the application;
(2) The date of the entry and the period of authorized, approved or disapproved interception, or the denial of the application; and
(3) The fact that during the period wire, electronic or oral communications were or were not intercepted.
The judge, upon the filing of a motion, may in his discretion make available to such person or his counsel for inspection such portions of the intercepted communications, applications and orders as the judge determines to be in the interest of justice. On an ex parte showing of good cause to a judge of competent jurisdiction the serving of the inventory required by this subsection may be postponed.
(9) The contents of any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in a federal or state court unless each party, not less than ten (10) days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding has been furnished with a copy of the court order and accompanying application under which the interception was authorized. This ten (10) day period may be waived by the court if it finds that it was not possible to furnish the party with the above information ten (10) days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding and that the party will not be prejudiced by the delay in receiving such information.
(10) (a) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, a state, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that:
1. The communication was unlawfully intercepted;
2. The order of authorization under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its face; or
3. The interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization.
Such motion shall be made before the trial, hearing, or proceeding, pursuant to the Idaho rules of criminal or civil procedure or the hearing rules of the respective body, as applicable.
(b) In addition to any other right to appeal, the state of Idaho shall have the right to appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress made under paragraph (a) of this subsection. Such appeal shall be taken within thirty (30) days after the date the order was entered.
(c) The remedies and sanctions described in this section with respect to the interception of electronic communications are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for nonconstitutional violations of this chapter involving such communications.
(11) The requirements of subsections (1)(b)(ii) and (3)(d) of this section relating to the specification of the facilities from which, or the place where, the communication is to be intercepted do not apply if:
(a) In the case of an application with respect to the interception of an oral communication:
(i) The application contains a full and complete statement as to why such specification is not practical and identifies the person committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted; and
(ii) The judge finds that such specification is not practical; and
(b) In the case of an application with respect to a wire or electronic communication:
(i) The application identifies the person believed to be committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted and the applicant makes a showing that there is probable cause to believe that the person’s actions could have the effect of thwarting interception from a specified facility;
(ii) The judge finds that such showing has been adequately made; and
(iii) The order authorizing or approving the interception is limited to interception only for such time as it is reasonable to presume that the person identified in the application is or was reasonably proximate to the instrument through which such communication will be or was transmitted.
(12) An interception of a communication under an order with respect to which the requirements of subsections (1)(b)(ii) and (3)(d) of this section do not apply by reason of subsection (11)(a) of this section shall not begin until the place where the communication is to be intercepted is ascertained by the person implementing the interception order. A provider of wire or electronic communications service that has received an order as provided for in subsection (11)(b) of this section may move the court to modify or quash the order on the ground that its assistance with respect to the interception cannot be performed in a timely or reasonable fashion. The court, upon notice to the state, shall decide such a motion expeditiously.