335 F. Supp. 523 - United States v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 12 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017 · most notably United States v. Giordano (1974), United States v. Tortorello (1973)
52 federal appellate · 12 district · 20 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 1 U.S.C. § 109 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 19 U.S.C. § 1709 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Katz v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas · Chimel v. California
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every order . . . shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept . . . shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception . . . . ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This Court takes issue with this position as having no legal basis, preferring to consider wiretaps within the framework of the general law of search and seizure and to follow its principles. . . . Throughout its history, whenever application of the exclusionary rule has resulted in total suppression of evidence in a criminal prosecution, it has been because the entire search and seizure was considered tainted by some violation of Fourth Amendment rights. . . . This was the case even in Berger v. New York, supra, and Katz v. United States, supra, the two decisions having the most significance in the genesis of constitutionally-approved electronic surveillance. In Berger the New York statute which authorized the electronic eavesdrop was adjudged unconstitutional so that no search pursuant to that statute could be valid either in whole or in part. Likewise in Katz an otherwise validly executed ‘bug’ was considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment because not authorized by a judge. The entire search was void ab initio. The case presently before this Court is of a different nature. Here we have a constitutional statute and a valid warrant (authorizing order) issued thereunder. In its execution, however, some, but not all, of the evidence seized lay beyond the scope of the warrant.” p. 544.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he limited system which the statute creates is designed to prevent unreasonable invasions of privacy, not to repair them... .”
2 later decisions 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.