State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Illinois v. Gates · Aguilar v. Texas · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Spinelli v. United States
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Each application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge of competent jurisdiction in the district where the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication is to occur, or in any district where jurisdiction exists to prosecute the underlying offense to support an intercept order under § 40-6-305. The application shall state the investigative or law enforcement officer’s authority to make the application and shall include the following information: (1)Identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application, and the district attorney general authorizing the application; (2) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant’s belief that an order should be issued, including: (A) Details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed; (B) A particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted; (C) A particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted; and (D) The identity of all persons, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be or may be intercepted; (3) 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”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a purely conclusory affidavit unrelated to the instant case and not showing any factual relations to the circumstances at hand would be ... an inadequate compliance with the statute.... [Rather,] the mere fact that the affidavit ... rested in part on statements that would be equally applicable to almost any [similar] case does not render the affidavit insufficient. What is required in addition, however, is information about particular facts of the case at hand which would indicate that wiretaps are not being routinely employed as the initial step in criminal investigation.”
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.