17 Cited authorities
Rathbun v. United States
355 U.S. 107 (1957) Cited 238 timesFinding no privacy violation, of which the non-consenting party may complain, where a party to the phone conversation consented to another party listening to the phone conversation on an extension
Teamsters Local v. Labor Board
365 U.S. 667 (1961) Cited 174 timesHolding that the Board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt, not that the Board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria
United States v. Keen
508 F.2d 986 (9th Cir. 1975) Cited 42 timesHolding that to be admissible, wiretap evidence must be "obtained in violation of neither the Constitution nor federal law"
Meredith v. Gavin
446 F.2d 794 (8th Cir. 1971) Cited 34 timesFinding that defendants were not liable in a private cause of action because the plaintiff had failed to show that they had violated the federal wiretapping law.
Smith v. Cincinnati Post Times-Star
475 F.2d 740 (6th Cir. 1973) Cited 31 timesHolding that Section 605 is violated only when a person "both intercepts and divulges" the communication
Wood v. Brier
534 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1976) Cited 27 timesNo. 75-1461. Decided April 2, 1976. DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. E.D.Wis., 66 F.R.D.8.
United States v. Krol
374 F.2d 776 (7th Cir. 1967) Cited 26 timesIn Krol, we held that the defendant's conviction would stand where he was found not guilty on the conspiracy part of the indictment but guilty of aiding and abetting the substantive offense.
Smith v. Wunker
356 F. Supp. 44 (S.D. Ohio 1972) Cited 18 timesExamining section 2511(d) exception and noting that "the concern of Congress was with the interception of private conversations by an unseen auditor."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 90, Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons' International Ass'n of the United States
606 F.2d 189 (7th Cir. 1979) Cited 7 timesNo. 78-2071. Argued May 30, 1979. Decided September 25, 1979. Frederick Havard, NLRB, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Barry J. Levine, St. Louis, Mo., for respondent. Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board. Before PELL, Circuit Judge, GEWIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOOD, Circuit Judge. Senior Circuit Judge Walter P. Gewin of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is sitting by designation. PELL, Circuit Judge. In this case the NLRB petitions for enforcement
Frattaroli v. N.L.R.B
526 F.2d 1189 (1st Cir. 1975) Cited 5 timesNo. 75-1085. Argued September 8, 1975. Decided December 18, 1975. John P. Flynn, Braintree, Mass., with whom Murphy, Lamere Murphy, Braintree, Mass., was on brief, for petitioners. Allison W. Brown, Jr., Washington, D.C., Atty., with whom John C. Miller, Acting Gen. Counsel, John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Alan D. Cirker and Sandra Shands Elligers, Washington, D.C., Attys., were on brief, for respondent N.L.R.B. Alan J. McDonald, Boston, Mass., with
Section 2510 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 2510 Cited 4,316 times 80 Legal AnalysesDefining "[i]nvestigative or law enforcement officer" as an officer "empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for [certain] offenses . . . and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses"
Section 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
18 U.S.C. § 2511 Cited 2,841 times 44 Legal AnalysesImposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”
Section 2515 - Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications
18 U.S.C. § 2515 Cited 745 times 4 Legal AnalysesCodifying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine for wiretapping evidence