摘要：In United States v. Dahda, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that, under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (“Title III”), the lower court properly denied Dahda’s motion to suppress evidence gathered by law enforcement using a mobile interception device—a device that wiretaps cell phones. A key part of the decision focused on the definition of mobile interception devices. The Tenth Circuit defined them as devices used to intercept communications that are movable. The Seventh Circuit, in contrast, has defined mobile interception devices as devices used to intercept mobile communications. This Comment argues that both definitions are overly broad in the modern context and are at odds with the congressional intent underlying Title III.
