United States v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
780 F.2d 838 · 1985
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably United States v. Sullivan (1990), United States v. Savaiano (1988)
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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. § 1952 · 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. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Calandra · Kastigar v. United States · Costello v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Perrin 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Even if all the evidence subsequently developed against the defendants can be characterized as evidence ‘derived from’ a wiretap authorized for purposes unrelated to defendants or the crimes with which they were charged, a proposition we find untenable, the government’s failure to secure additional authorization under § 2517(5) does not require suppression of that evidence. The sanction of suppression is limited to cases in which the government has illegally intercepted evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (10); United States v. Cardall, 773 F.2d 1128 (10th Cir.1985): United States v. Horton, 601 F.2d 319 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 937 , 100 S.Ct. 287 , 62 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); Fleming v. United States, 547 F.2d 872 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 831 , 98 S.Ct. 113 , 54 L.Ed.2d 90 (1977). In the present case, the evidence leading to the discovery of Davis’ name was not illegally intercepted. We have previously held a suit for damages as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2520 , rather than suppression of evidence, to be the exclusive remedy for unauthorized disclosures of wiretaps in violation of § 2517. United States v. Cardall, supra, at 1134 . Therefore, the district court properly admitted the tapes of wiretaps and other evidence obtained subsequent to the discovery of Davis’s existence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While we recognize that the legislative history of the Travel Act indicates it was aimed at combating organized crime, it has been clearly established that its reach is not limited to that end.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Admission is especially appropriate where a witness who heard the statements also testifies and the recording gives independent support to his testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hensley v. State
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.