Wiretap Act does not require a different application for each authorization, but merely that each application conform to the Act.
No clear error in authorizing the tap where many of the alternatives were discounted prospectively.
No error in denial of Franks hearing where the challenged omissions on the affidavit might be construed from the contents of the affidavit.
Sealing and delivery of tapes four days after the end of the tap did not transgress the two-day limit, as the government needed to confirm that the deft was no longer using that line.
Where trial judge accepts govt contention at trial that the content of the recorded conversation establishes that the confidential informant consented to the taping, no clear error in the admission of the tapes.
Parolee confidential informers can validly consent to the taping of conversations.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0116p-06.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.