United States v. Dimora’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 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. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Leon · Franks v. Delaware · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At most, suppression of only the non-pertinent calls that were improperly minimized would be appropriate. See United States v. Baltas, 236 F.3d 27, 32 (1st Cir.2001), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1030 , 121 S.Ct. 1982 , 149 L.Ed.2d 773 (2001) (“[Ejrrors in minimizing one particular interception within the context' of a lengthy and complex investigation ... do not automatically warrant suppression of all the evidence obtained through electronic surveillance.”); see [United States v.] Gray, 372 F.Supp.2d [1025,] 1046 [(N.D.Ohio 2005), aff'd in relevant part, 521 F.3d 514 (6th Cir.2008)]. The First Circuit has noted that “in a particularly horrendous case, total suppression may be ... an ‘appropriate’ solution,” but the court also noted that the “sweeping relief’ of complete suppression is only' appropriate upon a showing of “taint upon the investigation as a whole....” [United States v.] Hoffman, 832 F.2d [1299,] 1309 [(1st Cir.1987)] (While the district court suppressed 22 calls it believed to be improperly minimized, defendant was not entitled to total suppression because the “minimization effort, assayed in light of the totality of .the circumstances, was managed reasonably.”); see United States v. Mansoori, 304 F.3d 635, 648 (7th Cir.2002) (If the defendants were to prevail on their minimization argument, “the appropriate relief likely would be to suppress any conversation or conversations that were inappropriately monitored.”); United States v. Charles, 213 F.3d 10, 22 (1st Cir.”
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.