State v. Gibson’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1084 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3123 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Vandygriff v. Phillips · United States v. New York Telephone Co. · In Re the Attorney General, Stephan · United States v. Van Horn · United States v. Marion
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The district court concluded that it had no power to authorize installation and use of a pen register unit when any part, not just any indispensable part, .of it would be outside the judicial district. As discussed above, the State relies on .wiretap cases which permit surveillance on telephones located outside, the judicial. district as long as the “interception” takes place within it. .The rationale of those cases is built on the definitions of intercept, contents, and aural acquisition. Because a pen register does not .involve eavesdropping on substantive voice communications, there is no actual application of those definitions in the present circumstances. The State, however, urges the court to analogize the interception of voice communications in the wiretap cases to the decoding of the electronic impulses into numbers dialed. In each instance, monitoring took place at law enforcement headquarters. Hence, procurement of information in a form useful for investigative or eviden-tiary purposes occurred there. For this reason, even though the federal court in [United States v.] Rodriguez, [ 734 F.Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y.1990), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 847 , 113 S.Ct. 140 , 121 L.Ed.2d 92 (1992)] illustrated the logic of the interception analysis of the Georgia and Texas wiretap cases by contrasting the functions of wiretaps and pen registers, 734 F.Supp. at 121 , a similar analysis based on the monitoring location seems appropriate in the present pen register case. ,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.