People v. Gallegos, 251 P.3d 1056

Five defendants were arrested in a shared drug-distribution conspiracy based on wiretap evidence from orders issued in the Fourth Judicial District.
The wiretap orders were signed by Chief Judge Samelson during a period when his son worked as a deputy district attorney in the same district.
Defendant Perez moved to suppress the wiretap evidence, which the trial court granted on grounds of lack of neutral/detached magistrate and various statutory violations.
The People appealed, consolidating five interlocutory appeals seeking reversal of suppression.
The Supreme Court held the wiretap orders were issued by a neutral/detached magistrate and that statutory violations were not sufficient to warrant suppression; the suppression order was reversed.
The court analyzed whether neutral/detached magistrate standard was satisfied, reviewed statutory violations, and addressed specific issues such as extension applications, 15-day reports, inventory notices, and pre-trial copies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the wiretap orders were issued by a neutral and detached magistrate	People contend neutrality; no personal benefit to Samelson	Defense argues potential disqualification tainted neutrality	Yes; magistrate neutral and detachment satisfied
Whether violations of the wiretap statute justify suppression	Violations were not substantial or prejudicial	Statutory breaches could warrant suppression	No; violations not substantial/prejudicial
Whether the extension for Subject Telephone Two complied with statute	Extensions proper; renewal supported by affidavit	Procedural defects in renewal	Yes; extension valid despite clerical considerations
Whether 15-day progress reports required suppression	Reports optional but should be considered	Noncompliance not prejudicial; discretionary	No; suppression not warranted
Whether inventory and notice provisions require suppression	Notice issues prejudicial	Minor clerical errors harmless; not prejudicial	No; not enough prejudice or substantive impact

People v. Wahl, 716 P.2d 123 (Colo. 1986) (wiretap statutes closely patterned after federal act)
United States v. McKeever, 906 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1990) (neutrality maintained despite spouse in law enforcement)
United States v. Bowling, 619 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2010) (neutral and detached despite prior adverse position)