Legal Opinion
United States v. Borch
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided September 2, 1988No. 1:88-cr-20022PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHURCHILL, District Judge.
In this criminal proceeding, Defendant Patricia Borch has filed a suppression motion that requires the Court to consider the scope of “wire communications” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2510(1). Because the Court finds that non-telephonic conversations transmitted over an inadvertently open phone line do not fall within the ambit of “wire communications,” the Court shall grant Defendant Borch’s suppression motion.
I. The Factual Setting
On March 2, 1988, the Court entered an order authorizing interception of wire communications concerning an…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Scott v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. GiordanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. DonovanSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. ChavezSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. Darrel Paterson Simpson, Robert MacRiner Anderson, and James Roy FreemanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. Gary BaranekCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- United States v. EdwardsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- United States for an Order Authorizing the Roving Interception of Oral Communications v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- United States v. LopezDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2000
- United States for an Order Authorizing the Roving Interception of Oral Communications v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.