18 U.S.C. § 2708
Exclusivity of remedies
The remedies and sanctions described in this chapter are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for nonconstitutional violations of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: United States v. Timothy Sanders, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Timothy Sanders, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016). “Quite the contrary: the statute identifies a handful of civil remedies, including “damages” and “equitable or declaratory relief,” 18 U.”
State v. Brown, 302 Neb. 53 (Neb. 2019). “18 U.S.C. § 2708 . On this basis, many courts have found that suppression is not an available remedy even if evidence is obtained in violation of the act.”
Bansal v. Russ, 513 F. Supp. 2d 264 (E.D. Pa. 2007). “Here, Defendants argue that the Stored Communications Act expressly preempts state law, relying on 18 U.S.C. § 2708 . 18 U.S.C. § 2708 provides that “[t]he remedies and sanctions described in this chapter are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for nonconstitutional…”
Sims, Christian Vernon, 569 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019). “9 18 U.S.C. § 2708 ("The remedies and sanctions described in this chapter are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for nonconstitutional violations of this chapter.”
United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008). “” 18 U.S.C. § 2708 . Section 2707, in turn, describes remedies for violations of the Act as including civil actions for violators other than the United States and administrative discipline against federal employees in certain circumstances.”
Commonwealth v. Dougalewicz, 113 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). “In so holding, the suppression court rélied upon 18 U.S.C.A. § 2708 , which states that “[t]he remedies and sanctions described in this chapter are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for nonconstitutional violations of this chapter.”
United States v. Javier Guerrero, 768 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2014). “§ 2707 (b) (listing “appropriate relief’ as “equitable or declaratory relief,” “damages,” and “reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred”); 18 U.S.C. § 2708 (providing that the “remedies and sanctions described in this chapter are the only judicial…”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard J. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant, 155 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1998). “18 U.S.C. § 2708 (emphasis added). Therein lies the rub.”
State v. Brown, 202 A.3d 1003 (Conn. 2019). “" 18 U.S.C. § 2708 (2012). By contrast, as we have noted, § 54-47aa neither specifies available remedies nor limits them.”
In Re the United States of Am. for an Order Authorizing the Release of Prospective Cell Site Info., 407 F. Supp. 2d 134 (D.D.C. 2006). “*135 § 2708(c) ) by (inter alia) securing a court order upon a showing of specific and artic-ulable facts that the information sought is relevant to and material to an ongoing criminal investigation ( 18 U.S.C. § 2708 (d)); and (3) the government may secure a warrant pursuant to…”
Hepting v. AT & T Corp., 439 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2006). “A similar provision exists at 18 U.S.C. § 2708 (e) (emphasis added): No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons for providing information, facilities, or…”
Chapman v. Lawson, 89 F. Supp. 3d 959 (S.D. Ohio 2015). “Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2708 , the remedies provided in that chapter are the exclusive remedy for non-constitutional violations.”
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.