State v. Farha’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(1) The Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General, may authorize an application to a Federal judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with section 2518 of this chapter an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a Federal agency having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made, when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of — * * * * * * "(2) The principal prosecuting attorney of any State, or the principal prosecuting attorney of any political subdivision thereof, if such attorney is authorized by a statute of that State to make application to a State court judge of competent jurisdiction for an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications, may apply to such judge for, and such judge may grant in conformity with section 2518 of this chapter and with the applicable State statute an order authorizing, or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by investigative or law enforcement officers having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made, when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of the commission of the offense of murder, kidnapping, gambling, robbery, bribery, extortion, or dealing in narcotic drugs, marihuana or other dangerous drug”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hanley · 342 So. 2d 567 - State v. McGillicuddy

2. ““No applications may be authorized unless a specific state statute permits it. The state statute must meet the minimum standards reflected in the proposed chapter. The proposed provision envisions that states would be free to adopt more restrictive legislation, or no legislation at all, but not less restrictive legislation.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Politte · State v. Hanley

3. “"Several principles emerge from decisions interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (2) providing for state regulation of electronic surveillance. First, the federal act is not self-executing on the states; in order to obtain a wiretap warrant from a state court there must be a state wiretap statute in effect ( State v. Siegel, 266 Md. 256 , 292 A.2d 86 ; Halpin v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.3d 885 , 101 Cal. Rptr. 375 , 495 P.2d 1295 , cert. den. California v. Halpin, 409 U.S. 982 , 93 S.Ct. 318 , 34 L.Ed.2d 246 ). "Second, although a state may adopt a statute with standards more stringent than the requirements of the federal law ( Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 ; Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 , 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 ), a state may not adopt a statute with standards more permissive than those set forth in Title III ( In re Olander, 213 Kan. 282 , 515 P.2d 1211 ). `A State statute would be preempted where the State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress' ( Commonwealth v. Vitello, 367 Mass. 224 , 327 N.E.2d 819, 835 ). If a state wiretap statute is more permissive than the federal act, any wiretap authorized thereunder is fatally defective and the evidence thereby obtained is inadmissible under 18 U.S.C. § 2515 ." (544 P.2d at pages 347-348)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 381 So. 2d 707 - Daniels v. State