State v. Dye’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably State v. Catania (1981), State v. Short (1993)
38 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. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Stanley v. Georgia · International Ass'n of Machinists v. Duckworth · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · Trudo v. United States · Wenzler v. Pitchess
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Moreover, there is no support in the record for the contention that all the tapes should be excluded either because they were entirely inaudible or inaudible in such substantial part as to render them untrustworthy. Unless such a condition appeared the State was entitled to have the tapes admitted in evidence. See United States v. Knohl, 379 F. 2d 427, 440 (2 Cir.), cert. den. 389 U.S. 973 , 88 S.Ct. 472 , 19 L.Ed. 2d 465 (1967); Addison v. United States, 317 F. 2d 808, 815 (5 Cir.1963), cert. den. 376 U.S. 905 , 84 S.Ct. 658 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 605 , reh. den. 376 U.S. 966 , 84 S.Ct. 1121 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 984 (1964); Todisco v. United States, 298 F. 2d 208 (9 Cir.1961), cert. den. 368 U.S. 989 , 82 S.Ct. 602 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 527 (1962); Cape v. United States, 283 F. 2d 430, 435 (9 Cir.1960); and Monroe v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 228 , 234 F. 2d 49, 55 , cert. den. 352 U.S. 873 , 77 S.Ct. 94 , 1 L.Ed. 2d 76 (1956), where it was said " that partial inaudibility is no more valid reason for excluding recorded conversations than the failure of a personal witness to overhear all of a conversation should exclude his testimony as to those parts he did hear. Unless the unintelligible portions are so substantial as to render the recording as a whole untrustworthy the recording is admissible, and the decision should be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge." [ State v. Dye, supra, 60 N.J. at 531 , 291 A. 2d 825 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the ordinary case where articles of personal property are seized pursuant to a valid warrant, and the seizure of some of them is illegal as beyond the scope of the warrant, those illegally taken may be suppressed, or excluded at the trial, but those within the warrant do not become so tainted as to bar their receipt in evidence. [At 537].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“because of probable cause to believe that a gambling conspiracy exists, and a major purpose is to uncover as many of those involved as possible, it would seem just and necessary to be more liberal in terms of coverage and content of the calls and persons making them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.