Luangkhot v. State, 292 Ga. 423

Appellants Luangkhot, Saleumsy, and Phommachanh, plus about 34 others, were indicted in Gwinnett County for an alleged ecstasy trafficking operation.
Gwinnett County District Attorney obtained 18 wiretap warrants from a Gwinnett Superior Court to intercept telephone conversations during a multi-jurisdictional HIDTA-driven investigation.
The HIDTA listening post (wire room) was located in Fulton County; the monitored phones were not shown to have been used in Gwinnett County.
The defendants moved to suppress the wiretap evidence on jurisdictional grounds; the motions were denied and affirmed on interlocutory appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals.
The issue was whether a Georgia superior court may issue wiretap warrants that are effective outside its judicial circuit, given the interplay of Georgia’s wiretap statute and federal Title III law.
The Court reverses, holding that absent a state statute expressly granting such statewide or cross-circuit authority, warrants may only be issued by superior courts within the circuit where the interception occurs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Georgia superior courts may issue wiretap warrants effective outside their circuit.	Luangkhot argues warrants issued outside Gwinnett were improper.	State contends statutory language allows general superior court issuance, potentially across circuits.	No; warrants cannot extend outside the issuing circuit absent express state authorization.
What constitutes 'interception' and 'territorial jurisdiction' under federal Title III and Georgia statute.	Interception occurs at the listening post; jurisdiction should follow the crime’s location.	Argues broader interpretation may apply, including where targets reside or operate.	Interception is determined by where the contents are acquired; territorial jurisdiction remains within the circuit limits.
Role of federal law vis-à-vis state wiretap statute in determining jurisdiction.	Georgia statute mirrors federal standards; federal framework should govern jurisdiction.	State law controls which courts may issue warrants in given circuits.	Federal Title III defines scope; state law governs which court may issue within its circuit.

Evans v. State, 252 Ga. 312 (1984) (interception site is the listening post (aural acquisition))
Adams v. Lankford, 788 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir. 1986) (federal authority to issue warrants depends on state’s defined courts of competent jurisdiction)
Chase v. State, 285 Ga. 693 (2009) (statutory construction guiding interpretation of wiretap provisions)
Inagawa v. Fayette County, 291 Ga. 715 (2012) (statutory interpretation regarding territorial scope; presumption about legislative intent)
Granese v. State, 232 Ga. 193 (1974) (territorial jurisdiction of a superior court is the circuit in which it presides)
Wilder v. State, 290 Ga. 13 (2011) (de novo review; statutory interpretation principles applied)