18 U.S.C. § 2515
Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications
Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 564
cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Gelbard v. United States
Gelbard v. United States (1972)
“" 18 U. S. C. § 2515 . [2] The question presented is whether grand jury witnesses, in proceedings under 28 U.”
West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources Ex Rel. Wright v. David L. (1994)
“Code, 62-1D-6 (1987), and 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (1968). I. FACTS Jill L.”
United States v. Bradley Joseph Steiger (2003)
“See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2515 , 2518(10)(a). But he asserts that suppression of unlawfully seized electronic communications is available by negative implication under 18 U.”
United States v. Eric Scurry (2016)
“of wiretap evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 2515 . To determine whether an “unlawfully intercepted” communication merits suppression, id.”
United States v. Giordano (1974)
“pplications to be exercised by any individuals other than the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General specially designated by him and that primary or derivative evidence secured by wire interceptions pursuant to a court order issued in response to an application which…”
United States v. Calandra (1974)
“Congressional concern with the Silverthorne holding was clearly evidenced in enactment of 18 U. S. C. § 2515 , providing that "[w]henever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be…”
Jones v. United States (2011)
“Jones’ complaint alleged, among other challenges to his conviction, that the audio recording evidence was admitted in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2515 , which prohibits intercepted wire or oral…”
Miles v. State (2001)
“Prior to enactment of the current Maryland Wiretapping Act, this Court considered the scope of the exclusionary provision of the Federal Act as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2515 . See Carter v. State, 274 Md.”
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (2006)
“18 U. S. C. §2515 ; United States v. Giordano, 416 U.”
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard J. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant (1998)
“Smith’s contentions on appeal are essentially these: (1) that the government’s evidence of insider trading was “derived from” an illegal wiretap and, therefore, should have been excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2515 ; (2) that the information he possessed was *1055…”
Williams v. Poulos (1993)
“The argument has three components: (1) that the court abused its discretion in permitting defendants to disclose and/or use the intercepted recordings in Bowers; (2) that the court also abused its discretion in failing to enjoin the Bowers litigation; and (3) that the court…”
Commonwealth v. Damiano (2005)
“18 U.S.C. § 2515 . “Section 2511(l)(c) is also unambiguous, making it a crime whenever one ‘intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was…”
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.