345 F. Supp. 863 - United States v. Mainello’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 6 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2006 · most notably Scott v. United States (1978), United States v. Tortorello (1973)
14 federal appellate · 6 district · 11 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 18 U.S.C. § 1511 · 18 U.S.C. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 245 · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3504 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 28 U.S.C. § 510 · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Katz v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Jones v. United States · United States v. Ventresca
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“this authorization to intercept wire communications . . . shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications that are not otherwise subject to interception ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is our belief that with no higher court authority to the contrary, this principle applies as well to wiretaps under Title III, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. Section 2518 (10) (a), the section that addresses itself to motions to suppress interception, like Rule 41(e), may be considered as support for this position. The language here provides that any aggrieved person ‘may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that — (!) the communication was unlawfully intercepted; (ii) the order of authorization or approval under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its face; or (iii) the interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or approval.’ (Emphasis added) This language, using the singular form throughout, appears to indicate that a motion to suppress may be directed toward one or more allegedly unlawful interceptions, and that if such motion were granted, suppression of the entire wiretap would not be a necessary consequence. It is the decision of this Court, therefore, that defendants’ motions to suppress the entire contents of the wiretap on the basis of the Government’s failure to minimize interceptions are denied.” p. 545.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is often impossible to determine that a particular telephone conversation would be irrelevant and harmless until it has been terminated. It is certainly not unusual for two individuals using the telephone to discuss social matters or items of general interest before getting to the precise point which is to be covered in the call. Similarly, when a call is made to a residence, the telephone is often answered by a young child who will turn it over to one of the adult members of the household at some point in the conversation. It is also rather common that a telephone conversation initially between two children will later develop into a discussion between adults. * * * * * * It is all well and good to say, after the fact, that certain conversations were irrelevant and should have been terminated. However, monitoring agents are not gifted with prescience and cannot be expected to know in advance what direction the conversation will take. It is also true that, during the early part of the surveillance, it was necessary for the agents to familiarize themselves with the voices of those who were working with the defendants.”
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.