United States v. James’s Empirical Analysis
494 F.2d 1007 · 1974
Citation profile
99 federal appellate · 12 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2011 · most notably United States v. Chavez (1974), United States v. Williams (1984)
99 federal appellate · 12 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 26 U.S.C. § 7237 · 28 U.S.C. § 291
Relies on Katz v. United States · United States v. Wade · Brinegar v. United States · Beck v. State of Ohio · 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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The congressional reports accompanying the wiretap statute and decisions interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (5) make it clear that the minimization standard, like the standards traditionally applied to the determination of probable cause, is one of reasonableness which must be ascertained from the facts of a given case. “What is important is that the facts in the application on a case-by-case basis justify the period of time of the surveillance.” S.Rep.No.1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 101, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1968, p. 2190 (1968).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The statutory requirement that `normal investigative procedures' be first exhausted, must be reviewed in a `practical and common sense fashion': "`Subparagraph (c) requires a full and complete statement as to whether or not normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or why these are unlikely to succeed if tried, or to be too dangerous... . The judgment would involve a consideration of all the facts and circumstances. Normal investigative procedure would include, for example, standard visual or aural surveillance techniques by law enforcement officers, general questioning or interrogation under an immunity grant, use of regular search warrants, and the infiltration of conspiratorial groups by undercover agents or informants. Merely because a normal investigative technique is theoretically possible, it does not follow that it is likely. See Giancana v. United States, 352 F.2d 921 (7th) certiorari denied, 382 U.S. 959 , 86 S.Ct. 437 , 15 L.Ed.2d 362 (1965); New York v. Saperstein, 2 N.Y.2d 210 , 159 N.Y.S.2d 160 , 140 N.E.2d 252 (1957). What the provision envisions is that the showing be tested in a practical and commonsense fashion. Compare United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 , 85 S.Ct. 741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965).' "1968 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at p. 2190 (emphasis supplied). See United States v. James, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 88 , 494 F.2d 1007, 1015-16 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1020 , 95 S.Ct. 495 , 42 L.Ed.2d 294 (1974). To support a finding tha”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where the criminal enterprise under investigation is a large-scale conspiracy with many participants, it may be necessary for the government to monitor more conversations with greater intensity than when the investigation is more limited.”
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.