Indiana Code 35-33.5-2-1. Application for warrant by prosecuting or designated deputy prosecuting attorney; coapplicant; interception equipment under control of state police; reimbursement to state police
(1) the county that the prosecuting attorney represents is located; and
Terms Used In Indiana Code 35-33.5-2-1
- Attorney: includes a counselor or other person authorized to appear and represent a party in an action or special proceeding. See Indiana Code 1-1-4-5
- Probable cause: A reasonable ground for belief that the offender violated a specific law.
- Sheriff: means the sheriff of the county or another person authorized to perform sheriff's duties. See Indiana Code 1-1-4-5
The prosecuting attorney or authorized chief deputy prosecuting attorney may not delegate the responsibility of applying for a warrant or an extension to another deputy prosecuting attorney.
(b) One (1) of the following persons must serve as a coapplicant for a warrant or an extension under subsection (a):
(1) The superintendent of the state police department.
(2) The police chief of a consolidated city where the communication subject to the warrant is anticipated to be sent or received.
(3) The sheriff of the county containing a consolidated city where the communication subject to the warrant is anticipated to be sent or received.
(c) Only the state police department may install equipment used to intercept an electronic communication under this chapter.
(d) The state police department may:
(1) operate or monitor equipment used to intercept an electronic communication; or
(2) if the interception of an electronic communication is performed on behalf of another law enforcement agency, permit the law enforcement agency to operate or monitor the equipment under the supervision of the department.
(e) The superintendent of the state police department may terminate an interception under this chapter if the superintendent of the state police department determines that there is probable cause to believe that the allegations concerning the offense that are the basis of the interception are without merit. If an interception of an electronic communication is terminated under this subsection, the law enforcement agency that is the co-applicant for the interception shall reimburse the state police department for the department’s expenses incurred in connection with the application for interception, including the costs of removing equipment related to the interception.
(f) If the interception of an electronic communication is performed on behalf of another law enforcement agency, the law enforcement agency shall reimburse the department for the department’s expenses in connection with the installation, operation, and maintenance of equipment used to intercept an electronic communication.
As added by P.L.161-1990, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.105-2007, SEC.6.