Do State Judges have authority under Title III's enabling statute to issue wiretap orders beyond their state borders?

QUESTION PRESENTED Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 prohibits wiretapping except as provided in the enabling statute, 18 U.S.C. §2516. Section 2516(1) authorizes federal judges to issue eavesdropping warrants, and section 2516(2) is the enabling statute that authorizes state judges to issue wiretap orders. Under Title III states are free to adopt wiretapping procedures either more restrictive than federal law or prohibit wiretapping completely. Joseph Schneider, a California resident, has never set foot in New York, never made calls to or received calls from New York, and never committed any crimes in New York. A New York Judge issued wiretap orders on his mobile phone in California, and the signal was re-directed to a listening post in Brooklyn where police overheard the communications regarding his gambling operations — none of which took place in New York. The question presented is: Do State Judges have authority under Title III’s enabling statute to issue wiretap orders beyond their state borders as here where a New York Judge ii ordered wiretaps on Joseph Schneider’s mobile phone in California when all phone calls originated and terminated outside of New York State and Joseph Schneider committed no crimes in New York State? iii PARTIES TO PROCEEDING The People of the State of New York are represented by the Kings County District Attorney, Mr. Eric Gonzalez. Joseph Schneider, the petitioner, is represented by Stephen N. Preziosi, Esq. iv RELATED CASES e People v. Joseph Schneider, 4097/2016, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, Criminal Term Part 19. Judgment dated September 15, 2017. e People v. Joseph Schneider, 2018-09853, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. Judgment dated Oct. 16, 2019. e People v. Joseph Schneider, No. 41, New York Court of Appeals. Judgment dated June 3, 2021.