prosecuting attorney; coapplicant; interception equipment under control of state police; reimbursement to state police Sec. 1. (a) A prosecuting attorney or, if the prosecuting attorney is unavailable, a chief deputy prosecuting attorney specifically authorized by the prosecuting attorney, may submit an application for a warrant or an extension to a circuit or superior court where: (1) the county that the prosecuting attorney represents is located; and (2) the communication subject to the warrant is anticipated to be sent or received. The prosecuting attorney or authorized chief deputy prosecuting attorney may not delegate the responsibility of applying for a warrant or an extension to another deputy prosecuting attorney. (b) One (1) of the following persons must serve as a coapplicant for a warrant or an extension under subsection (a): (1) The superintendent of the state police department. (2) The police chief of a consolidated city where the communication subject to the warrant is anticipated to be sent or received. (3) The sheriff of the county containing a consolidated city where the communication subject to the warrant is anticipated to be sent or received. (c) Only the state police department may install equipment used to intercept an electronic communication under this chapter. (d) The state police department may: (1) operate or monitor equipment used to intercept an electronic communication; or (2) if the interception of an electronic communication is performed on behalf of another law enforcement agency, permit the law enforcement agency to operate or monitor the equipment under the supervision of the department. (e) The superintendent of the state police department may terminate an interception under this chapter if the superintendent of the state police department determines that there is probable cause to believe that the allegations concerning the offense that are the basis of the interception are without merit. If an interception of an electronic communication is terminated under this subsection, the law enforcement agency that is the co-applicant for the interception shall reimburse the state police department for the department's expenses incurred in connection with the application for interception, including the costs of removing equipment related to the interception. (f) If the interception of an electronic communication is performed on behalf of another law enforcement agency, the law enforcement agency shall reimburse the department for the department's expenses in connection with the installation, operation, and maintenance of equipment used to intercept an electronic communication. As added by P.L.161-1990, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.105-2007, SEC.6.
IC 35-33.5-2-2 Application or extension in writing and upon oath of affirmation; information required Sec. 2. (a) Except as provided in section 3.5 of this chapter, an application for a warrant or extension must be made in writing and upon oath or affirmation. Each application must also include the following: (1) The identity of the persons submitting the application. (2) An affidavit setting forth the facts relied upon by an applicant to show why a warrant should be issued or an extension granted, including the following: (A) Facts establishing probable cause for the belief that a designated offense allegedly has been, is being, or may be committed. (B) A description of the nature and location of the facility, place, or device from which the communication is to be intercepted. (C) The identity, if known, of the person allegedly committing the designated offense whose communication is to be intercepted. (D) A description of the type of communication to be intercepted. (3) A statement specifying that other investigative procedures: (A) have been tried and failed; or (B) may not succeed or are too dangerous to attempt. (4) A statement of the duration necessary for the interception. However, if the applicant requests that the authorization for interception not automatically terminate once the described type of communication is initially obtained, the application must also include a description of facts supporting the belief that additional communications of the same type will occur. (5) A statement of facts and any action taken by the court concerning any previous application for a warrant or an extension that: (A) has been made to a court under this article; (B) sought to obtain communications from any of the same persons, places, or facilities as the current application; and (C) is known to exist by the persons making the current application. (6) If it is reasonably necessary to make a secret entry upon private property to install an interception device, a statement describing the following: (A) The private property. (B) Who owns and who occupies the private property. (C) The reasons necessitating secret entry. (b) In addition to the information required in subsection (a), if an application is for an extension, the application must contain a statement setting forth the results obtained from the original warrant or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain results under the original warrant. (c) The court may require an applicant to furnish additional testimony or evidence in support of an application. As added by P.L.161-1990, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.105-2007, SEC.7.