Who has the authority to authorize consensual, non-in-home intercepts?

Who has the authority to authorize consensual, non-in-home intercepts?

• A. Chief Justice
• B. Attorney General or District Attorney or designee
• C. Local Police Chief
• D. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Answer: (B)

The authority to authorize consensual, non-in-home intercepts is vested in the Attorney General or District Attorney or their designee. This is grounded in legal provisions that permit law enforcement for certain types of surveillance, particularly when individuals consent to the interception of their communications. The necessity of this authorization is linked to maintaining oversight and ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected, balancing law enforcement's need to investigate against privacy interests. The Attorney General or District Attorney typically has the expertise and the operational jurisdiction to evaluate the circumstances under which such intercepts may be justified. They can provide the necessary legal foundation to ensure that activities comply with statutory requirements and safeguard public interests. As a result, this choice supports a structured approach to the lawful interception of communications rather than leaving it to individuals without legal authority or specific expertise, like local police chiefs or federal agencies.

The authority to authorize consensual, non-in-home intercepts is vested in the Attorney General or District Attorney or their designee. This is grounded in legal provisions that permit law enforcement for certain types of surveillance, particularly when individuals consent to the interception of their communications. The necessity of this authorization is linked to maintaining oversight and ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected, balancing law enforcement's need to investigate against privacy interests.

The Attorney General or District Attorney typically has the expertise and the operational jurisdiction to evaluate the circumstances under which such intercepts may be justified. They can provide the necessary legal foundation to ensure that activities comply with statutory requirements and safeguard public interests. As a result, this choice supports a structured approach to the lawful interception of communications rather than leaving it to individuals without legal authority or specific expertise, like local police chiefs or federal agencies.