## Facts

- Federal and local agencies investigated suspected narcotics offenses under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) involving a Florida business and associated individuals.
- Investigators believed the subjects used a specific business telephone number in furtherance of the suspected offenses.
- The United States applied ex parte for an order authorizing installation and use of a pen register and trap-and-trace device (described as a caller-identification device) for that number.
- The application identified the government attorney and investigating agencies and certified that the information likely to be obtained would be relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
- The application asserted venue/jurisdiction in the Middle District of Florida because the equipment would be installed and used at the county sheriff’s office within the district, even if the monitored line might be located elsewhere.
- A magistrate judge twice denied the application for lack of additional factual detail supporting jurisdiction and the expected usefulness of the device, prompting district-court review on a renewed application.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may deny a pen-register/trap-and-trace application for failure to provide factual support beyond the statutory certification that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
2. Whether the district court has jurisdiction to issue the order when the device will be installed and used within the district, even if the monitored telephone line may be located outside the district.

## Decision

- The district court granted the application and directed issuance of the requested order.
- The court held the magistrate judge erred by requiring a factual showing beyond what the pen register statute demands.
- The court held jurisdiction was proper because the device would be installed and used within the Middle District of Florida.

## Legal Principles

- Under the federal pen register statute (18 U.S.C. §§ 3121–3127), an application is sufficient if it identifies the government attorney, identifies the investigating agency, and includes the attorney’s certification that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
- The statute does not require probable cause or an independent judicial assessment of the evidentiary basis for relevance; once the statutory elements are met, issuance of the order is mandatory rather than discretionary.
- For jurisdictional purposes, a court may authorize a pen register/trap-and-trace device where the device is installed and used, even if the monitored telephone line is located outside the district.

## Conclusion

The court required issuance of a pen-register/trap-and-trace order upon the government’s statutory certification of relevance and upheld jurisdiction based on the location where the device would be installed and used.


In re Application of the United States, 846 F. Supp. 1555 (M.D. Fla. 1994)