United States v. Burroughs’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Berger v. New York · Katzenbach v. Morgan · United States v. Guest · Weiss 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Subparagraph (a) [of § 2511] establishes a blanket prohibition against the interception of any wire communication. . The broad prohibition of subparagraph (a) is also applicable to the interception of oral communications. The interception of such communications, however, does not necessarily interfere with the interstate or foreign communications network, and the extent of the constitutional power of Congress to prohibit such interception is less clear than in the case of interception of wire communications. . Although the broad prohibitions of subparagraph (a) could, for example, be constitutionally applied to the unlawful interception of oral communications by persons acting under color of State or Federal law, ... the application of the paragraph to other circumstances could in some cases lead to a constitutional challenge that can be avoided by a clear statutory specification of an alternative constitutional basis for the prohibition. Therefore, in addition to the broad prohibitions of subparagraph (a), the committee has included subparagraph (b), which relies on accepted jurisdictional bases under the commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution to prohibit the interception of oral communications. Taken together, subparagraphs (i) to (v) of subparagraph (b) create an essentially comprehensive ban on the interception of oral communications. The provisions will be applicable to the overwhelming majority of cases involving the unlawful interception of such commu”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"It is true that the United States Attorney did not ask the union organizer: `Do you expect that your oral communication would not be subject to interception?' but such exactitude of proof is unnecessary."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rovinsky v. State“any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation”
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.