A person whose conversations are intercepted pursuant to a wiretap order issued by a federal court may litigate a section 1538.5 suppression motion in state court. During the investigation of a Los Angeles homicide, the investigating officer was contacted by an agent with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. The agent, investigating drug trafficking, had obtained a federal court order to intercept and monitor a mobile telephone. While monitoring the incoming and outgoing conversations, the authorities intercepted conversations implicating appellant in the homicide. Appellant subsequently filed a suppression motion in the state court, arguing for suppression of the intercepted communication but the trial court ruled that appellant had no standing to raise the issue. The appellate court ruled that appellant did have standing since the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act permits any aggrieved person to invoke the suppression sanction in any court, and an aggrieved person is one who was a party to the intercepted communication. However, here the error was harmless since the relevant federal statute expressly permits federal law enforcement officials to disclose contents of communications involving matters other than those authorized by the warrant to other law enforcement agencies unless there is a showing that the warrant is merely a subterfuge to acquire evidence for an offense for which there is no legal basis for the warrant.