No order entered under this act [30-12-1 to 30-12-11 NMSA 1978] may authorize or approve the interception of any wire or oral communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, nor in any event longer than thirty days. Extensions of an order may be granted, but only upon application for an extension, made in accordance with Section 30-12-3 NMSA 1978, and if the court makes the findings required by Section 30-12-4 NMSA 1978. The period of extension shall be no longer than the authorizing judge deems necessary to achieve the purpose for which it was granted, and in no event longer than thirty days. 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 under this act and shall terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective, or in any event within thirty days. Whenever an order authorizing interception is entered pursuant to this act, 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. The reports shall be made at such times as the judge may require.
History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-12-1.5, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 369, § 6.
ANNOTATIONSInterception of nonrelevant conversations. — This section does not forbid interception of all nonrelevant conversations, but, like the federal statute, mandates the government to conduct the surveillance so as to minimize the interception of such conversations. Factors to be considered in determining whether the government acted reasonably in a given case may include, but are not limited to, the complexity of the criminal operation, whether the callers are using ambiguous or coded language, whether the applicable telephone is public or residential, the length of time of the wiretap and of the telephone calls, and the extent of judicial supervision. State v. Manes, 1991-NMCA-025, 112 N.M. 161, 812 P.2d 1309, cert. denied, 112 N.M. 77, 811 P.2d 575, and cert. denied, 502 U.S. 942, 112 S. Ct. 381, 116 L. Ed. 2d 332 (1991).
The defendant argued that the police, who wiretapped his phone, failed to properly minimize the interception of unauthorized communications, those involving his wife, mother, and children. To prevail, he had to show a pattern of interception of innocent conversations which developed over the period of the wiretap; it was insufficient if he merely identified particular calls which he contended should not have been intercepted. State v. Manes, 1991-NMCA-025, 112 N.M. 161, 812 P.2d 1309, cert. denied, 112 N.M. 77, 811 P.2d 575, and cert. denied, 502 U.S. 942, 112 S. Ct. 381, 116 L. Ed. 2d 332 (1991).
Law reviews. — For survey of 1990-91 criminal procedure and evidence, see 22 N.M.L. Rev. 713 (1992).