Cox v. United States, 406 U.S. 934 (1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Cox v. United States, 406 U.S. 934 (1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
210 citation events across 42 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Hardwell (ca10, 1996-04-05) · Strongest negative: United States v. Eddie David Cox, United States of America v. Carl Edward Branch, United States of America v. Edward Courtland Miller, United States of America v. James Phillip Dearborn (ca8, 1972-07-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "but see" United States v. Eddie David Cox, United States of America v. Carl Edward Branch, United States of America v. Edward Courtland Miller, United States of America v. James Phillip Dearborn (4×) also: Cited "see"
8th Cir. · 1972 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
But cf., State v. Molinaro, 117 N.J.Super. 276 , 284 A.2d 385 (1971) 12 United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972); United States v. Forcarile, 340 F.Supp. 1033 (D.Md.1972); United States v. LaGorga, 336 F.Supp. 190 (W.D.Pa.1971); United States v. Perillo, 333 F.Supp. 914 (D.Del.1971); United States v. Leta, 332 F.Supp. 1357, 1359-1361 (M.D.Pa.1971); United States v. Scott, 331 F.Supp. 233, 238-241 (D.D.C.1971); United States v. Cantor, 328 F.Supp. 561 (E.D.Pa.1971); United States v. Sklaroff, 323 F.Supp. 296 (S.D.Fla…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Hardwell (2×)
10th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679, 690 (10th Cir.1971), cert. denied 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Dennis Lee Hardwell, United States of America v. Marcel A. Hardwell, United States of America v. Dennis L. Hardwell, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Frederick D. Bowens, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee. United States of America v. Adam Stallings, AKA Gene Walker, United States of America v. Dennis L. Hardwell Marcel A. Hardwell, Frederick D. Bowens Adam Stallings, AKA Gene Walker (2×)
10th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679, 690 (10th Cir.1971), cert. denied 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" Mayle v. Laborer's International Union of North America
N.D. Ohio · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Vestal v. Hoffa, 451 F.2d 706, 708 (6th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1768 , 32 L.Ed.2d 135 (1972) (Courts should defer to union’s interpretation of the constitution unless it is not fair and reasonable.).
cited Cited "see" James Washington v. Laborer's International Union of North America
8th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Vestal v. Hoffa, 451 F.2d 706, 709 (6th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1768 , 32 L.Ed.2d 135 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Marvin Leroy White, United States of America v. Amos Jimmy Jennings (2×)
10th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679, 689 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 126 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Newberry (2×)
Mo. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679, 688 [3] (10th Cir., 1971) cert. den. 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Carminati (2×)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cox, 449 F. 2d 679, 690 (10 Cir.1971), cert. den. 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed. 2d 136 (1972); United States v. Lo Bue, 180 F. Supp. 955, 956 (S.D.N.Y. 1960).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Eddie David Cox (2×)
10th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 .
examined Cited "see" United States v. Salvatore Ross Agrusa (4×)
8th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Andrew Carmen Menichino (2×)
5th Cir. · 1974 · signal: accord · confidence high
United States v. Clayton, 1 Cir. 1971, 450 F.2d 16, 20 , cert. denied, 405 U.S. 975 , 92 S.Ct. 1200 , 31 L.Ed.2d 250 ; accord, United States v. Cox, 10 Cir. 1971, 449 F.2d 679, 688-689 , cert. denied, 1972, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 ; United States v. Weber, 3 Cir. 1970, 437 F.2d 327, 339-340 , cert. denied, 1971, 402 U.S. 932 , 91 S.Ct. 1524 , 28 L.Ed.2d 867 . 6 .
cited Cited "see" Andrew J. Smith, Etc. v. United Mine Workers of America, an Unincorporated Association, and Louis Kosec
10th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Vestal v. Hoffa, 6 Cir., 451 F.2d 706, 709 , cert. denied 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1768 , 32 L.Ed.2d 135 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Joseph E. Cafero A/K/A Ernie, in No. 72-1577 Appeal of Dominick Vinciguerra, A/K/A Dom, in No. 72-1578 (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Justice Douglas’ dissent from the denial of certiorari, Cox v. United States, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Cox (2×)
8th Cir. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972). 13 Appellants’ first broad contention asserts that wiretapping and eavesdropping are inherently unconstitutional as violative of First Amendment freedom of speech, Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches, Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination, the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and the penumbral right of privacy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." A.S. Newell v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
5th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
We will not invalidate the International’s interpretation of its own constitution unless it is “patently unreasonable.” Stelling v. IBEW, 587 F.2d 1379 , 1389 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 944 , 99 S.Ct. 2890 , 61 L.Ed.2d 315 (1979); Local Union No. 657 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners v. Sidell, 552 F.2d 1250, 1257 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 862 , 98 S.Ct. 190 , 54 L.Ed.2d 135 (1977); see also Vestal v. Hoffa, 451 F.2d 706, 709 (6th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1768 , 32 L.Ed.2d 135 (1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rivenbark v. State (2×)
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679 (10th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972), and State v. Newberry, 605 S.W.2d 117 (Mo.1980).
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Rudolph Sedovic A/K/A Rudy Sedovic (4×)
8th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679, 683-87 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972); United States v. Tortorello, 342 F.Supp. 1029, 1038 (S.D.N.Y.1972), aff'd, 480 F.2d 764 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 866 , 94 S.Ct. 63 , 38 L.Ed.2d 86 (1973); see generally J.
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Earl Watson, Tony Maxwell and Mae Lillian Brown (4×)
10th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, E. g., United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679 (10th Cir.), Cert. denied, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Best (2×)
S.D. Ga. · 1973 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679 (10 Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972) (Title III does not authorize general searches and comports with the requirements of Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 , 87 S.Ct. 1873 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1967); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), and Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323 , 87 S.Ct. 429 , 17 L.Ed.2d 394 (1966)) ; United States v. Focarile, 340 F.Supp. 1033 (D.Md.1972) ; aff’d. sub nom., United States v. Giordano, 469 F.2d 522 (4 Cir. 1972) (Title III does not …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Nicholas R. Fino
2d Cir. · 1973 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Cox, 449 F.2d 679 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 *37 U.S. 934, 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972); United States v. Cox, 462 F.2d 1293 (8th Cir. 1972); United States v. Cafero, 473 F.2d 489 (3d Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. John Jacob Bobo (2×)
4th Cir. · 1973 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also the dissent to the denial of certiorari in United States v. Cox, 406 U.S. 934 , 92 S.Ct. 1783 , 32 L.Ed.2d 136 . 6 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eddie David Cox
v.
United States
71-5910.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 15, 1972.
406 U.S. 934
Douglas, Brennan, Marshall.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.

Dissent

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted of bank robbery after a trial in which the Government introduced over objection tape recordings of his telephone communications. These tape recordings had resulted from a federal court order which was issued pursuant to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510-2520, and which permitted federal agents to wiretap. Although the order was limited to seizures of communications relating to narcotics offenses, the eavesdroppers discovered that the subjects were discussing a bank robbery and those conversations were recorded despite the limited scope of the order.

The petitioner challenged the introduction of these tapes on the ground that their subject matter was outside the scope of the warrant. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, reasoning that once the device was legitimately spliced into the designated telephone lines anything overheard was in “plain view” and therefore could be seized lawfully. Said the Court of Appeals: “Once the listening commences it becomes impossible to turn it off when a subject other than one which is authorized is overheard,” 449 F. 2d 679, 686-687. With all respect, that is precisely the point. As I said in Osborn v. United States, 385 U. S. 323, 353:

“Such devices lay down a dragnet which indiscriminately sweeps in all conversations within its scope,[*935] without regard to the nature of the conversations, or the participants. A warrant authorizing such devices is no different from the general warrants the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit.”

I would grant this petition, reverse, and hold that Title III offends the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment.