context: Applying this test, we conclude that suppression is not required for the district court's authorization of wiretaps beyond the court's territorial jurisdiction.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 788 F.2d 1493, 1500
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that authorization of a wiretap order beyond the territorial restrictions in 18 U.S.C. SS 2518(3) does not require suppression because the statutory violation would not implicate Congress's core concerns underlying Title III
citation_a.sentence: See Adams v. Lankford, 788 F.2d 1493, 1500 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding that authorization of a wiretap order beyond the territorial restrictions in 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3) does not require suppression because the statutory violation would not implicate Congress’s core concerns underlying Title III).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.identifier: 736 F.3d 509, 515
citation_b.parenthetical: concluding that territorial jurisdiction is a core concern of Title III
citation_b.sentence: But see United States v. Glover, 736 F.3d 509, 515 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (concluding that territorial jurisdiction is a core concern of Title III).