What is required by law to justify a non-consensual wiretap?

To justify a non-consensual wiretap, the law mandates the establishment of probable cause. This requirement ensures that law enforcement has legitimate reason to believe that a crime is being committed, or that evidence of a crime will be found through electronic surveillance.

Probable cause serves as a critical threshold that protects individuals from unwarranted intrusions into their privacy. It necessitates that before a wiretap can be authorized, there must be concrete facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that criminal activity is occurring. This standard is intended to safeguard citizens' rights against arbitrary government actions, ensuring that there is a legal basis that justifies the infringement on privacy rights that a wiretap represents.

In contrast, public consent, emergency situations, and prior written notice are not universally applicable requirements for non-consensual wiretaps under the law. Public consent would imply that the involved parties agree to the surveillance, which fundamentally changes the nature of a non-consensual action. Emergency situations might provide certain exceptions but do not replace the need for probable cause in most standard circumstances. Lastly, prior written notice is typically not a requirement for non-consensual wiretaps; in fact, giving notice beforehand could undermine the purpose of the surveillance.