28 U.S.C. § 2518
Repealed. Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 139(l), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 43]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2022 · leading case: Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962).
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962). “For claims in excess of $100,000, 28 U. S. C. § 2518 directs the Secretary of the Treasury to certify them to Congress once review in this Court has been foregone or sought and found unavailing.”
United States v. Massino, 605 F. Supp. 1565 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). “28 U.S.C. § 2518 (5). Assuming the greater precision of a minimization requirement in the order at issue, the more stringent requirements do not confer additional rights upon those with no privacy interest in the place of surveillance.”
United States v. Scott, 331 F. Supp. 233 (D.D.C. 1971). “SUFFICIENCY OF THE APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT Defendants seek to suppress the evidence in this case on the ground that the application and affidavit submitted to Judge Smith for the initial intercept order on January 24, 1970, were insufficient on their face to establish probable…”
Bolduc v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 187 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “Moreover, it appears that plaintiff was aware of the existence of the unjust conviction and imprisonment statute at least as far back as October, 1999, as the Wisconsin district court order granting his request noted that he had “applied for a certificate of innocence pursuant…”
Bertram Zweibon v. John N. Mitchell, Individually & as Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am., 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “The violence directed at Soviet personnel by the League, including the bombing of Soviet installations, justified an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2518 for an order authorizing a tap on the League’s telephones.”
United States v. James Michael Baker, 589 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1979). “- The foundation affidavit named as suspects the other five defendants “and others yet unknown”. The government is not required to identify an individual in a wiretap authorization application unless it has probable cause to believe that the individual is engaged in criminal…”
United States v. Marcello, 508 F. Supp. 586 (E.D. La. 1981). “§ 2518 (5); (3) the orders failed to particularly describe the communications sought to be intercepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2518 (4); (4) the government provided an insufficient justification for the need for electronic surveillance and failed to try other investigatory…”
Nat'l Ass'n of Reg'l Councils v. Costle, 564 F.2d 583 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “Judgments in excess of $100,000 are certified to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for a special appropriation, 28 U.S.C. § 2518 (1970); see, e. g., Pub.”
United States v. Vincent Peter Pisacano, 459 F.2d 259 (2d Cir. 1972). “Lindenbaum had approved the applications, this discrepancy did not meaningfully subvert the congressional scheme.”
United States v. Whitaker, 343 F. Supp. 358 (E.D. Pa. 1972). ““Having concluded that the Justice Department’s procedures were very likely consistent with the mandate of § 2516(1), we would not be inclined to rule that the authorizations were nevertheless invalid in light of 28 U.S.C. § 2518 (1) (a) & (4) (d) which require that the…”
United States v. Torres, 908 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1990). “” 28 U.S.C. § 2518 (3)(c). Although generally a wire intercept should not constitute the first step in an investigation, see Brone, 792 F.”
In the Matter of Special February, 1977 Grand Jury. Appeal of Alfred Pavone, 570 F.2d 674 (7th Cir. 1978). “28 U.S.C. § 2518 (10)(a), provides in pertinent part: (10)(a) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, may…”
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.