State v. Politte’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably State v. Ring (2001), State v. Martin (1984)
2 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Ohio v. Roberts · United States v. Ventresca · Singleton v. Wulff · Dutton v. Evans · United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (9) sets forth an exclusionary rule applicable to all hearings and proceedings in which a wiretap was conducted in violation of statutes or the constitution, or where intercepted communications are not disclosed ten days prior to any hearing or proceeding. Arizona has adopted no comparable statute. 2. 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (8)(a) and (c) requiring an immediate return of all recordings to the issuing court so that they may be sealed and authorizing contempt of any person who violates the restrictions on the execution of wiretap orders, have no Arizona counterparts in that; while the Arizona statute requires immediate sealing, the federal law goes on to state that an improper seal renders the contents of the intercepted communications and all derivative evidence inadmissible in all proceedings. 3. 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (2) authorizing the issuing judge to require "additional testimony or documentary evidence in support of the application" prior to rendering a decision on the issuance of a wiretap order does not find comparable authority in Arizona; and, finally, 4. 18 U.S.C. 2518(3) providing that a justice may enter an ex parte order only within the territorial jurisdiction in which he is sitting finds no similar counterpart in Arizona.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Olea · State v. Olea“directly and substantially implement[s] the congressional intention to limit the use of intercept procedures to those situations clearly calling for the employment of this extraordinary investigating device.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Olea · State v. Olea“A full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Olea · State v. Olea
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.