Dahda v. United States, 584 U.S. 440

Federal statute (18 U.S.C. §2510 et seq.) authorizes wiretap orders but limits interception to the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court (§2518(3)); suppression permitted if (i) unlawful interception, (ii) order is "insufficient on its face," or (iii) interception not in conformity with order (§2518(10)(a)).
In 2011 the Government obtained nine wiretap orders from a District of Kansas judge in a drug investigation; each order included an extra sentence purporting to allow interception "outside the territorial jurisdiction" of the court.
The Government primarily monitored from a Kansas listening post, but in one instance monitored from a Missouri listening post; communications from that Missouri listening post were not introduced at trial.
Defendants Los and Roosevelt Dahda moved to suppress all evidence from the nine orders, arguing each order was facially insufficient because of the extra territorial-authorizing sentence.
The Government conceded it would not use evidence from the Missouri listening post; the district court denied suppression; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, applying a "core concerns" test derived from United States v. Giordano.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve circuit splits about when §2518(10)(a)(ii) requires suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dahda)	Defendant's Argument (United States / Tenth Cir.)	Held
Whether an order is "insufficient on its face" under §2518(10)(a)(ii) whenever any legal defect appears on the order's face	Any legal defect on the four corners of the order (e.g., language authorizing interception outside the court's territorial jurisdiction) renders the order facially insufficient and requires suppression of fruits of the order	Subparagraph (ii) should not be read so broadly; apply Giordano's "core concerns" limitation so only defects affecting Congress's core wiretap objectives trigger suppression	Court rejected the broad Dahda rule and also rejected extending Giordano's "core concerns" test to subparagraph (ii); held the orders were not facially insufficient because the surplus territorial language was non-effective and removable, and the orders otherwise met statutory requirements

United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 (1974) (limited §2518(10)(a)(i) suppression to statutory violations that implicate Congress’ core wiretap concerns)
United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (1906) (syllabus does not form part of Court's opinion)
United States v. Glover, 736 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (concluded territorial defect required suppression under §2518(10)(a)(ii))
Adams v. Lankford, 788 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir. 1986) (held suppression not required for orders exceeding territorial jurisdiction)
United States v. Moore, 41 F.3d 370 (8th Cir. 1994) (discussed types of facial order defects that courts have considered)