Villa v. Maricopa County, No. 15-15460 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed on different grounds the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's putative class action against Maricopa County defendants. The panel held that plaintiff lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief on behalf of herself or a putative class, but that she has standing to pursue individual damages; Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3010(A), as applied by Maricopa County officials, was preempted by Title III, and that plaintiff's rights under 18 U.S.C. 2516(2) were violated because applications for wiretaps were not made by the "principal prosecuting attorney;" section 13-3010(H) was not preempted by Title III if it was construed to require that recordings of intercepted conversations be submitted to a court for sealing within ten days of the termination of the court's order authorizing a wiretap on each particular target line; plaintiff's rights under 18 U.S.C. 2518(8)(a) were violated because the recordings of her intercepted conversations were submitted for sealing more than a month after the termination of the order authorizing the wiretap on the target line on which her conversations were intercepted; and the law enforcement officials who violated sections 2516(2) and 2518(8)(a) were acting in good faith within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 2520(d), and they were protected from a damage judgment.
Court Description: Civil Rights / Standing / Preemption. The panel affirmed on different grounds the district court’s dismissal of Manuela Villa’s putative class action against Maricopa County defendants, alleging that portions of the Arizona wiretapping statute, and the County’s practices thereunder, were preempted by and violated Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. The panel held that Villa lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief on behalf of herself or a putative class, but that she had standing to pursue individual damages. On the merits, the panel held that Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13- 3010(A), as applied by Maricopa County officials, was preempted by Title III, and that Villa’s rights under 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2) were violated because applications for wiretaps were not made by the “principal prosecuting attorney.” The panel held further that Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3010(H) was not preempted by Title III if it was construed to require that recordings of intercepted conversations be submitted to a court for sealing within ten days of the termination of the court’s order authorizing a wiretap on each particular target date. VILLA V. MARICOPA COUNTY 3 The panel held that Villa’s rights under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(a) were violated because the recordings of her intercepted conversations were submitted for sealing more than a month after the termination of the order authorizing the wiretap on the target line on which her conversations were intercepted. Finally, the panel held that because the law enforcement officials were acting in good faith within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2520(d), they were protected from a damage judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.