D.A. Appeals Ruling that Threw Out Taped Evidence : Justice: District attorney’s office wants use of wiretapped conversations in methamphetamine case.

The district attorney’s office has appealed a decision to throw out wiretap evidence--the first time a strict state wiretap law was ever used--in a major methamphetamine case.

Last month Superior Court Judge J. Perry Langford ruled that the evidence--tapes that were collected over six weeks earlier this year--was not handled as required by the Presley-Felando Eaves Wiretap Act of 1988.

After complaining for more than three years that the law was too restrictive, the district attorney’s office had received permission from Superior Court Judge Raymond Edwards Jr. to install two wiretaps.

During the six weeks the phone lines were monitored, investigators followed all provisions of the complicated law, including reporting activity to a judge every 72 hours.

But an attorney representing one of the alleged leaders of a drug ring argued that investigators failed to obtain an immediate written order to seal the evidence.

“This wiretap was improperly conducted under the statute,” attorney Eugene Iredale said.

In the appeal filed Monday with the 4th District Court of Appeal, Deputy Dist. Atty. Evan Miller argued that investigators did meet with Edwards to discuss the original tape recordings immediately after the wiretaps were halted.

“The court did not require the actual production of the sealed tapes,” Miller wrote.

However, the signing of the court order to seal the tapes did not take place until 179 days after the investigation concluded.

Miller said the tapes are admissible as evidence “because the judge issued an oral order sealing the tapes.” Furthermore, Miller explained, the tapes were sealed every day and contain a special encoding that allows experts to determine if the tapes have been tampered with.

Earl Frank Westbrook, 46, and Larry Albert Ross, 42, are accused of being ringleaders in a methamphetamine manufacturing scheme. Both men, and the people who allegedly helped them, are charged in a 24-count indictment handed down by the county grand jury June 2. Two have already pleaded guilty.

Even if the wiretaps are not allowed as evidence, Miller and Iredale agree that it may not change the outcome of a trial. “In this case the wiretaps play a small role,” Miller said.