context: The Court of Appeals held that the failure to include this provision was fatal because in Maryland the order must strictly comply with the statutory provisions. The court commented: "[t]he language is unequivocal, leaving no room to doubt that the legislature intended that the wiretap order conform scrupulously to the mandate of the statute."
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: post order compliance judged by more lenient substantial compliance standard
citation_a.sentence: See also State v. Siegel, App., 266 Md. 256, 292 A.2d 86, 95 (1972) (Title III sets up a strict procedure that must be followed); Poore v. State, 39 Md.App. 44, 384 A.2d 103, 106 (1978) (same); cf. Spease v. State, App., 275 Md. 88, 338 A.2d 284 (1975) (post order compliance judged by more lenient substantial compliance standard).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: Title III sets up a strict procedure that must be followed
citation_b.sentence: See also State v. Siegel, App., 266 Md. 256, 292 A.2d 86, 95 (1972) (Title III sets up a strict procedure that must be followed); Poore v. State, 39 Md.App. 44, 384 A.2d 103, 106 (1978) (same); cf. Spease v. State, App., 275 Md. 88, 338 A.2d 284 (1975) (post order compliance judged by more lenient substantial compliance standard).