Pubdate: Mon, 07 Jan 2013
Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution (GA)
Copyright: 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Contact: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/letters/sendletter.html
Website: http://www.ajc.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/28
Author: Bill Rankin

COURT RULING SUPPRESSES WIRETAP EVIDENCE IN ECSTASY CASE

The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday ruled that state judges cannot 
authorize wiretaps that intercept phone calls outside their judicial 
circuits, a decision that could impair multi-county drug investigations.

The ruling suppresses key evidence against three defendants charged 
in an alleged, large-scale ecstasy distribution ring in Gwinnett County.

"This has large practical ramifications," Gwinnett Chief Assistant 
District Attorney Dan Mayfield said. "It will be much more difficult 
for us to investigate the large drug cartels in Georgia. Wiretaps 
were the most effective law enforcement tool for this."

Prosecutors are expected to ask the Legislature to amend the law to 
make such wiretaps permissible in the future, Mayfield said.

The defendants - Khamone Luangkhot, Isaac Saleumsy and Santisouk 
Phommachanh - were among more than three dozen people indicted in 
2007 by a Gwinnett grand jury on drug-related charges. When making 
the arrests, officers seized about 65,000 ecstasy tablets, seven 
weapons and thousands of dollars in cash.

The indictments stemmed from an investigation led by the Atlanta High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force. As part of the probe, 
prosecutors obtained a series of warrants from a Gwinnett Superior 
Court judge that allowed the interception of calls from 18 different 
telephone lines. The task force's "wire room," where agents listened 
to the intercepted calls, was located in Fulton County.

In pretrial motions, lawyers for the three defendants challenged the 
Gwinnett judge's authority to approve the warrants because the 
interceptions were made outside Gwinnett's borders. In January, the 
Georgia Court of Appeals upheld the judge's decision to approve the warrants.

But Chief Justice Carol Hunstein, writing for a unanimous state 
Supreme Court, disagreed.

The law does not give local judges such broad territorial reach, she 
said. "If our Legislature had intended to grant Superior Courts the 
authority to issue wiretap warrants effective for interceptions 
outside their circuits, it would have done so explicitly."

Atlanta lawyer John Garland, who represents Saleumsy, a former 
Marietta Police Officer, said the court made the right decision. 
"These warrants had to be for wiretaps within the territorial 
jurisdiction of the court," he said.

"We believe this ruling has the practical effect of making it 
virtually impossible for them to proceed with prosecutions," Garland 
said. "The entire case was built on these wiretaps."

Gwinnett Assistant District Attorney Keith Miles said his office was 
analyzing the decision. "If we feel like there's no other argument we 
can make, it could very well result in the dismissal of the 
defendants in this case," he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom