United States v. Bernstein’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.2d 996 · 1975
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2517 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Spinelli v. United States · Johnson 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted . . .,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) a full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify his belief that an order should be issued, including (i) details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed, (ii) a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted, (iii) a particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted, (iv) the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted;”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We therefore hold that when there is probable cause to believe that an individual is committing a specific crime and may be overheard on a specific phone, he is known to the government for the purpose of § 2518(l)(b)(iv).” United States v. Bernstein, 509 F.2d 996 , 1002 (4th Cir. 1975).”
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.