(1) the judge, in addition to making the determinations required under Article 18A.102, determines:

(A) that:

(i) the premises into or onto which the covert entry is authorized or the person whose communications are to be obtained has been the subject of a pen register previously authorized in connection with the same investigation;

(ii) the premises into or onto which the covert entry is authorized or the person whose communications are to be obtained has been the subject of an interception of wire or electronic communications previously authorized in connection with the same investigation; and

(iii) the procedures under Subparagraphs (i) and (ii) have failed; or

(B) that the procedures under Paragraph (A) reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed or to be too dangerous if attempted or are not feasible under the circumstances or exigencies of time; and

(2) the interception order, in addition to the matters required to be specified under Article 18A.103(a), specifies that:

(A) the covert entry is for the purpose of intercepting oral communications of two or more persons; and

(B) there is probable cause to believe that the persons described by Paragraph (A) are committing, have committed, or are about to commit a particular offense described by Article 18A.101.

(b) An interception order may not authorize a covert entry into a residence solely for the purpose of intercepting a wire or electronic communication.

Added by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1058 (H.B. 2931), Sec. 1.01, eff. January 1, 2019.