Legal Opinion

State v. Siegel

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided November 29, 1971No. 111, September Term, 1971PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOrth, J.

We find:(1) Ch. 119, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520, entitled Wire Interceptions and Interception of Oral Communications (the federal act), is constitutional ; 1(2) a judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, presiding in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, and a judge of a Circuit Court of a county of this State may enter orders authorizing interceptions of wire or oral communications;(3) the entering of such orders, all matters with regard to the execution of them, and the use and disposition of property seized under them shall be in conformity with the provisions of the federal act;(4) such…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Alderman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Hoffa v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. State v. SiegelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
  2. Everhart v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  3. Lohss and Sprenkle v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
  4. Hopkins v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1973
  5. Hughes v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1972

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API