State v. Pottle

*276CAMPBELL, J.

This case involves the legality of a wiretap. The trial court found the wiretap order to be sufficient on its face, held that defendant Pottle lacked “standing” to object to the lack of minimization in the conduct of the wiretap, and denied his motion to suppress the wiretap and the derivative evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed, found that Pottle had “standing,” suppressed the evidence and remanded for a new trial. 62 Or App 545, 662 P2d 351 (1983). We allowed review, restricting our review to the admissibility of the wiretap evidence.1 We affirm the Court of Appeals.

Christoph…