(1) in the case of an application for an interception order that authorizes the interception of an oral communication:

(A) the application contains a complete statement as to why the specification is not practical and identifies the person committing or believed to be committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted; and

(B) a judge of competent jurisdiction finds that the specification is not practical; or

(2) in the case of an application for an interception order that authorizes the interception of a wire or electronic communication:

(A) the application identifies the person committing or believed to be committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted;

(B) a judge of competent jurisdiction finds that the prosecutor has made an adequate showing of probable cause to believe that the actions of the person identified in the application could have the effect of preventing interception from a specified facility; and

(C) the authority to intercept a wire or electronic communication under the interception order is limited to a period in which it is reasonable to presume that the person identified in the application will be reasonably proximate to the interception device.

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