20 Cited authorities

Whren v. United States
517 U.S. 806 (1996) Cited 8,784 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, upon observing traffic violation, officer may stop vehicle regardless of his subjective motivations, "as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action"
Brigham City v. Stuart
547 U.S. 398 (2006) Cited 2,648 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that "law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant . . . to protect an occupant from imminent injury"
Katz v. United States
389 U.S. 347 (1967) Cited 12,612 times 74 Legal Analyses
Holding that failure to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth would "ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication"
Bond v. United States
529 U.S. 334 (2000) Cited 304 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that an officers' physical manipulation of a bus passenger's bag constituted a search because the exploratory manner in which the bag was felt exceeded the usual handling that would be expected
KEE v. CITY OF ROWLETT, TEX
247 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 388 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs did not engage in oral communication under Title III because “they failed to present evidence demonstrating any affirmative steps taken to preserve their privacy,” and “point to no reasonable safeguards or common-sense precautions taken to preserve their expectation of privacy”
Dorris v. Absher
179 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 1999) Cited 178 times
Holding that Congress intended to change the meaning of a statute where an amendment changed the operative verb from "shall" to "may"
United States v. Turner
528 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1975) Cited 168 times
Finding Section 2518(b) satisfied by similarly descriptive allegations of defendant's involvement in narcotics trafficking supported by statements from informants and corroborated by agents participating in controlled buys, as well as defendant's prior criminal involvement in similar offenses
U.S. v. Nerber
222 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 77 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding videotaping defendants in hotel room while consenting informants were in the room was not a search because defendants were not overnight guests in the hotel room, but were only there to conduct a business transaction at the invitation of the occupants, and when informants were in the room, defendants bore the risk they were being surveilled
U.S. v. Smith
978 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1992) Cited 88 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that "Title III expressly excludes cordless telephone transmissions from the definitions of `wire' and `electronic' communication"
United States v. Oliva
705 F.3d 390 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 38 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendant had standing to seek to suppress communications because his “conversations were the target of the surveillance” even if he was not always a participant
Section 2510 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 2510 Cited 4,297 times 79 Legal Analyses
Defining "[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 2,831 times 44 Legal Analyses
Imposing 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 Analyses
Codifying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine for wiretapping evidence

USA v. Giraudo et al

20 Cited authorities

Holding that, upon observing traffic violation, officer may stop vehicle regardless of his subjective motivations, "as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action"

Holding that "law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant . . . to protect an occupant from imminent injury"

Holding that failure to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth would "ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication"

Holding that an officers' physical manipulation of a bus passenger's bag constituted a search because the exploratory manner in which the bag was felt exceeded the usual handling that would be expected

Holding that Congress intended to change the meaning of a statute where an amendment changed the operative verb from "shall" to "may"

Finding Section 2518(b) satisfied by similarly descriptive allegations of defendant's involvement in narcotics trafficking supported by statements from informants and corroborated by agents participating in controlled buys, as well as defendant's prior criminal involvement in similar offenses

Noting that "Title III expressly excludes cordless telephone transmissions from the definitions of `wire' and `electronic' communication"

Holding that the defendant had standing to seek to suppress communications because his “conversations were the target of the surveillance” even if he was not always a participant

Defining "[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"

Imposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”

Codifying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine for wiretapping evidence