The defendants applied for leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiant on an application for authorization to intercept private communications, in the context of a Garofoli challenge.
They argued that investigative necessity had not been established and that police prematurely resorted to wiretap authorizations instead of pursuing conventional investigative techniques such as surveillance, informant development, and tracking orders.
The Crown opposed the request, submitting that the authorization materials fully described the investigative steps taken and that cross-examination was unnecessary.
The court held that there was no basis to permit cross-examination, noting there was no suggestion the affiant misled the authorizing judge and that the Garofoli review would proceed based on the existing materials.
The application for cross-examination was dismissed.
