Legal Opinion
United States v. Perillo
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided September 2, 1971No. Crim. A. 2104-2106, 2123PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LAYTON, District Judge.
The defendants in four criminal actions have moved to suppress certain evidence, i. e., telephone calls and other materials, obtained pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520 1 upon the ground that said statute, pursuant to which the evidence was seized, is unconstitutional.
Defendants’ motion is based upon two wiretaps and pen registers (mechanical devices which record numbers dialed from specific telephones). On December 7, 1970, in accordance with procedures set out in § 2518, Judge Latchum of this Court, based upon a showing of probable cause, authorized the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- United States v. Arthur TortorelloCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- United States v. CoxCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1972
- United States v. FocarileDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1972
- United States v. John Jacob BoboCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1973
- United States v. Joseph E. Cafero A/K/A Ernie, in No. 72-1577 Appeal of Dominick Vinciguerra, A/K/A Dom, in No. 72-1578Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.