Luangkhot v. State
313 Ga. App. 599
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendants Luangkhot, Saleumsy, and Phomm-achanh, along with ~35 others, faced multiple indictments for ecstasy trafficking and related conspiracies.
- Motions to suppress evidence challenged wiretap warrants on jurisdictional grounds.
- Trial court held Gwinnett County had proper jurisdiction and venue under OCGA 16-11-64.
- Intercepted communications resulted from 25 warrants, extensions, and amendments.
- Listening post and interception location were outside Gwinnett County; State argued statute authorized issuance by Gwinnett judges anyway.
- Georgia’s wiretap statute amended to broaden territorial scope, affecting which courts may issue warrants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gwinnett judges could issue warrants for interceptions outside Gwinnett. | State argues OCGA 16-11-64(c) authorizes due-to-crime jurisdiction. | Defendants contend territorial limits tie warrants to county of interception. | Yes; Gwinnett judges authorized under statute. |
| Interpretation of OCGA 16-11-64(c) and legislative history. | State relies on broad statutory text and history. | Defendants rely on Evans pre-2000 limitation. | Statute grants broader territorial scope; Evans no longer controlling. |
| Constitutionality/privacy challenge preservation. | Constitutionality argued but not preserved. | Not preserved; Supreme Court lacks appellate jurisdiction absent trial ruling. | |
| Impact on multi-jurisdictional drug investigations. | Broad jurisdiction prevents fragmentation across counties. | Fragmentation would occur under narrow county-based view. | Statute supports unified prosecutions across jurisdictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. State, 252 Ga. 312 (1984) (recognizes territorial jurisdiction under prior statute (pre-2000) but not controlling now)
- Adams v. Lankford, 788 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir. 1986) (states define territorial jurisdiction for state wiretap warrants; state law governs scope)
- North v. State, 250 Ga. App. 622 (2001) (wiretap admissibility requires compliance with both federal and state law)
- Fairwell v. State, 311 Ga. App. 834 (2011) (exclusive appellate jurisdiction for constitutional issues; preservation required)