2 Cal. 4th 1088 - People v. Otto’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably 29 Cal. 4th 53 - Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002), 19 Cal. 4th 1106 - Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999)
8 federal appellate · 71 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2111
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Caminetti v. United States · Sedillo v. United States · United States v. American Trucking Associations
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Title III provides a ‘comprehensive scheme for the regulation of wiretapping and electronic surveillance.’ [Citation & fn. omitted.] The Act makes it unlawful for any person[ 8 ] to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication ‘[e]xcept as otherwise specifically’ permitted by other provisions of the statute. ( 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (l)(a).) Willful disclosure of the contents of communications by a person who knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through an unlawful interception is also forbidden. ( 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (1)(c).) “In addition to imposing a criminal penalty for unauthorized interceptions or disclosure of information obtained through such interceptions ( 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (l)(a)), the Act creates a damage remedy for any person whose wire or oral communications have been unlawfully intercepted, disclosed or used. ( 18 U.S.C. § 2520 .) More importantly for our purposes here, the Act also provides a suppression sanction. Title 18, United States Code, section 2515 [] states: ‘Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be i”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`The purpose of the [Act] ... was effectively to prohibit ... all interceptions of oral and wire communications, except those specifically provided for in the Act....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“provides 'a comprehensive scheme for the regulation of wiretapping and electronic surveillance.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.