What is a viable defense if accused of violating the wiretap act?

Relying in good faith on a court order is a strong defense if accused of violating the wiretap act. The wiretapping laws allow for certain exceptions where surveillance is permitted when conducted under the authority of a valid court order. This demonstrates that the accused acted within the legal framework established by the courts, providing a clear justification for their actions. Good faith reliance on a court order shows that the individual believed they were operating legally, which can mitigate liability. This defense underscores the principle that adherence to judicial oversight can protect individuals from claims of illegal wiretapping when they operate under sanctioned circumstances set forth by the judicial system.

In contrast, having an improper belief does not provide a sound legal defense, as subjective feelings of belief do not equate to legal compliance. Receiving information directly from a witness may not address how that information was obtained and does not necessarily relate to the legality of wiretapping. Engaging in undercover work can be a legitimate practice in certain situations, but it does not automatically exempt one from wiretap violations unless specifically authorized by law.