Legal Opinion
United States v. Smart
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided January 29, 2002No. 00-6458PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.
A jury convicted James Robert Smart of bribing a government official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2). Federal agents developed significant evidence used against Mr. Smart during the trial through the use of wiretaps allowing agents to hear and record Mr. Smart’s telephone conversations. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522 (1994 & Supp.2000), requires federal agents seeking a wiretap authorization to obtain approval first from the Attorney General, or a designated Assistant Attorney General,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. GiordanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. ChavezSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. EscandarDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1970
- United States v. Salvatore Ross AgrusaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1976
- United States v. Castillo-GarciaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. HardmanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. VanMeterCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
- State v. HouseWisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
- United States v. LewisCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2024
- United States v. Raymond S. Hardman, in the Matter of Joseluis Saenz, Claimant-Appellee v. Department of the Interior, United States of America v. Samuel Ray Wilgus, Jr., Christian Legal Society, the New Mexico Civil Liberties Foundation, the Commission on Social Action of Reformed Judaism, Hopi Tribe, and Jicarilla Apache Nation, Amici CuriaeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.