Replies

"I can't believe there would be a law in CA that would require a court reporter to be present during proceedings to get a warrant."

I know here in NC where my son is LE and hubby is retired LE that the magistrates do warrants all the time w/o any court reporter.
You'd have to have a court reporter on duty 24/7 if things were done that way.

Right--I've never even HEARD it PROPOSED that there be a court reporter there when people get warrants. I mean, they usually use affidavits anyway.

I think the proceedings whose judge McAllister is subpoenaing are some sort of special "overseeing" of wiretaps which is built into the wiretap law. So these would have been ongoing reports to this judge.

It's almost like the defense is suggesting that the judge was not impartial, maybe even suggesting that he was crooked. If I were that judge, I'd be irritated by that.

I remember reading in one of the documents posted by RB--it was the prosecution's recounting of their wiretapping, a summary that I think the law dictates they give the supervising judge periodically--that this judge was so cautious, he made the police stop doing those 6-second "spot-checks", even though the statute said they could. And the police complied with that order from the judge, and stopped doing spot-checks.