I recently write the SCOTUSBlog opinion analysis for Dahda v. United States. Here’s how my post opens and ends:
The Supreme Court’s brisk opinion in Dahda v. United States awarded the government yet another exclusionary rule victory, this time in the context of a statutory provision rooted in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The justices ruled unanimously (with Justice Neil Gorsuch recused) against a defendant’s request for suppression of evidence collected under a wiretap order that authorized surveillance outside the territorial jurisdiction of the district judge who issued the order. But while the court’s decision helpfully clarifies the law, it generally tries to avoid big questions, leaving deeper debates about statutory exclusionary rules for another day.
[A]ny view of what it means for a wiretap order to be “insufficient on its face” raises the question, “Insufficient for what?” For example, an order could be facially insufficient to authorize: any surveillance at all, the surveillance that it purports to authorize, or the surveillance that is actually introduced at trial. The court seems largely to embrace the first type of insufficiency, while only indirectly touching on the other possibilities. But some readers might think that the choice among the various options is difficult—and not dictated by the dictionary definition of “insufficient.” So, consistent with the oral argument and exclusionary case law more generally, the court was guided by what, in its view, “makes sense” of the various suppression provisions involved.