United States v. McKinnon’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.2d 19 · 1983
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. Angiulo (1988), 2 Cal. 4th 1088 - People v. Otto (1992)
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 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. § 2510 (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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on United States v. Southard · United States v. Brodson · United States v. Johnson · United States v. Raymond D. Masciarelli and Lawrence Schultz
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence of crimes other than those authorized in a wiretap warrant are intercepted 'incidentally' when they are the by-product of a bona fide investigation of crimes specified in a valid warrant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[wjhen an investigative or law enforcement officer, while engaged in intercepting wire or oral communications in the manner authorized herein, intercepts wire or oral communications relating to offenses other than those specified in the order of authorization or approval, the contents thereof, and evidence derived therefrom, may be disclosed or used as provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section. Such contents and any evidence derived therefrom may be used under subsection (3) of this section [authorizing the use of such evidence in judicial proceedings] when authorized or approved by a judge of competent jurisdiction where such judge finds on subsequent application that the contents were otherwise intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Such application shall be made as soon as practicable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Congress intended that evidence relating to unauthorized offenses should be given retroactive judicial approval under section 2517(5) if the original wiretap warrant was lawfully obtained, was sought in good faith and not as a subterfuge search, and that the communication was in fact incidentally intercepted during the course of a lawfully executed order.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.