321 F. Supp. 424 - United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2000 · most notably Mitchell v. Forsyth (1985), United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (1972)
22 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Katz v. United States · Chimel v. California · Alderman v. United States · United States v. Rabinowitz · Nardone 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(3) Nothing contained in this chapter or in section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1143; 47 U.S.C. 605) shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities. Nor shall anything contained in this chapter be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government. The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by authority of the President in the exercise of the foregoing powers may be received in evidence in any trial hearing, or other proceeding only where such interception was reasonable, and shall not be otherwise used or disclosed except as is necessary to implement that power.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]his court is forced to conclude that in wholly domestic situations there is no national security exemption from-the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. (emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“counterparts. United States v. Smith, 321 F.Supp. 424 (D.D.C.Cal.1971), reasoned: (E)lectronic surveillance is perhaps the most objectionable of all types of searches in light of the intention of the Fourth Amendment. It is carried out against an unsuspecting individual in a dragnet fashion, taking in all of his conversations whether or not they are relevant to the purposes of the investigation and continuing over a considerable length of time. If the government's”
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.