Del. C. » Title 11 — Delaware Criminal Code · CHAPTER 5. Specific Offenses · Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Delaware Code

11 Del. C. § 1336 (2026)

Wiretapping and electronic surveillance [Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Repealed by 72 Del. Laws, c. 232, effective July 23, 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1975–1990 · leading case: Wilson v. State, 343 A.2d 613 (Del. 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilson v. State, 343 A.2d 613 (Del. 1975). · cites it 4× “§ 757 (recently recodified as 11 Del.C. § 1336). At trial, the defendant challenged the admissibility of the wiretap product and all evidence resulting from it, alleging numerous violations of his constitutional rights.”
State v. Perry, 599 A.2d 759 (Del. Super. Ct. 1990). “2) Did the affiants’ statements for the necessity of the wiretap meet the requirements of 11 Del.C. § 1336? I am satisfied that the answer is yes.”
State v. Vouras, 351 A.2d 869 (1976). · cites it 13× “On December 11, 1974, the Attorney General of the State of Delaware submit *872 ted an application to Superior Court pursuant to 11 Del.C. § 1336 for an order authorizing the interception of wire communications of “Edward Vouras of the Downtown Business Men’s Club at 711 North…”
State v. Pulgini, 366 A.2d 1198 (Del. Super. Ct. 1976). “§ 1335 and/or is inadmissible as not authorized under 11 Del. C. § 1336; and 4) a motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant’s home pursuant to a search warrant on grounds of staleness.”
— 11 Del. C. § 1336(f)(3) — 1 case
State v. Vouras, 351 A.2d 869 (1976). “On December 11, 1974, the Attorney General of the State of Delaware submit *872 ted an application to Superior Court pursuant to 11 Del.C. § 1336 for an order authorizing the interception of wire communications of “Edward Vouras of the Downtown Business Men’s Club at 711 North…”
— 11 Del. C. § 1336(h)(3) — 1 case
State v. Vouras, 351 A.2d 869 (1976). “On December 11, 1974, the Attorney General of the State of Delaware submit *872 ted an application to Superior Court pursuant to 11 Del.C. § 1336 for an order authorizing the interception of wire communications of “Edward Vouras of the Downtown Business Men’s Club at 711 North…”
— 11 Del. C. § 1336(i) — 1 case
State v. Vouras, 351 A.2d 869 (1976). “On December 11, 1974, the Attorney General of the State of Delaware submit *872 ted an application to Superior Court pursuant to 11 Del.C. § 1336 for an order authorizing the interception of wire communications of “Edward Vouras of the Downtown Business Men’s Club at 711 North…”
— 11 Del. C. § 1336(k) — 2 cases
Wilson v. State, 343 A.2d 613 (Del. 1975). “§ 757 (recently recodified as 11 Del.C. § 1336). At trial, the defendant challenged the admissibility of the wiretap product and all evidence resulting from it, alleging numerous violations of his constitutional rights.”
State v. Vouras, 351 A.2d 869 (1976). “On December 11, 1974, the Attorney General of the State of Delaware submit *872 ted an application to Superior Court pursuant to 11 Del.C. § 1336 for an order authorizing the interception of wire communications of “Edward Vouras of the Downtown Business Men’s Club at 711 North…”
— 11 Del. C. § 1336(k)(6) — 1 case
Wilson v. State, 343 A.2d 613 (Del. 1975). “§ 757 (recently recodified as 11 Del.C. § 1336). At trial, the defendant challenged the admissibility of the wiretap product and all evidence resulting from it, alleging numerous violations of his constitutional rights.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.