For the purpose of evaluating the validity of a wiretap order, this Court has established a dichotomy between preconditions and post conditions. State v. Bailey, 289 Md. 143, 152-54, 422 A.2d 1021 (1980). Preconditions include the actions that must be taken before a judge may issue an ex parte wiretap order and the inclusion of certain provisions required to be in the wiretap order. Id. at 153-54, 422 A.2d 1021. One such precondition is the requirement in § 10-408(e)(3) that “[ejvery order and extension thereof shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept ... shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under this subtitle.... ” See State v. Siegel, 266 Md. 256, 273-74, 292 A.2d 86 (1972) (<HOLDING>). With regard to preconditions, we said that
holding this requirement to be a precondition to obtaining intercept authority holding that an identical notice requirement in resource conservation and recovery act was a mandatory precondition to suit holding that adequate notice is a mandatory precondition of a clean water act citizen suit recognizing a split of authority on this issue holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional