34 Cited authorities

Katz v. United States
389 U.S. 347 (1967) Cited 12,696 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"
Rakas v. Illinois
439 U.S. 128 (1978) Cited 6,491 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that the determinative question is "whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place"
Wong Sun v. United States
371 U.S. 471 (1963) Cited 12,400 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding evidence stemming from Fourth Amendment violations must be excluded from trial as fruit of the poisonous tree
Kyllo v. United States
533 U.S. 27 (2001) Cited 1,656 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that the use of thermal imaging technology can constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment
Dalia v. United States
441 U.S. 238 (1979) Cited 653 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the manner of a search is subject to "later judicial review as to its reasonableness"
Berger v. New York
388 U.S. 41 (1967) Cited 947 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding facially unconstitutional statute authorizing issuance of orders for electronic eavesdropping without probable cause
United States v. Kahn
415 U.S. 143 (1974) Cited 467 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the interception of a wife's conversations on her home telephone was incidental, and not in violation of the Fourth Amendment, because her criminal activities were not foreseen when the Title III wiretap order targeting her husband was obtained
Gelbard v. United States
408 U.S. 41 (1972) Cited 393 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under 18 U.S.C. § 2515, a witness called before a grand jury can refuse to answer questions based on information obtained in violation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
KEE v. CITY OF ROWLETT, TEX
247 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 390 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"
Section Amendment IV - Search and Seizure
U.S. Const. amend. IV Cited 28,007 times 2 Legal Analyses
Recognizing "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures... [without] probable cause"
Section 2510 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 2510 Cited 4,324 times 80 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 2518 - Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications
18 U.S.C. § 2518 Cited 2,929 times 13 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that some investigative techniques may be “too dangerous”
Section 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
18 U.S.C. § 2511 Cited 2,851 times 45 Legal Analyses
Imposing a penalty on persons who “intentionally intercept ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication”
Section 2516 - Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications
18 U.S.C. § 2516 Cited 846 times 3 Legal Analyses
Listing the executive officers who may authorize a wiretap application
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

34 Cited authorities

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 the determinative question is "whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place"

Holding evidence stemming from Fourth Amendment violations must be excluded from trial as fruit of the poisonous tree

Holding that the use of thermal imaging technology can constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment

Holding that the manner of a search is subject to "later judicial review as to its reasonableness"

Holding facially unconstitutional statute authorizing issuance of orders for electronic eavesdropping without probable cause

Holding that the interception of a wife's conversations on her home telephone was incidental, and not in violation of the Fourth Amendment, because her criminal activities were not foreseen when the Title III wiretap order targeting her husband was obtained

Holding that, under 18 U.S.C. § 2515, a witness called before a grand jury can refuse to answer questions based on information obtained in violation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968

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

Recognizing "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures... [without] probable cause"

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"

Recognizing that some investigative techniques may be “too dangerous”

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

Listing the executive officers who may authorize a wiretap application

Codifying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine for wiretapping evidence