Legal Opinion · Dissent
People v. Ingram
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided July 2, 1984No. Nos. 83SA153, 83SA443Published
1DissentNeighbors, Justice
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that the threshold question in this case is whether the Aurora officers were legally and factually under the control and supervision of agents from the Intelligence *247Division of the Lakewood Department of Public Safety (LDPS) while they were monitoring the wiretap. See United States v. Lyons, 507 F.Supp. 551 (D.Md.1981), aff'd, 695 F.2d 802 (4th Cir.1982); C. Fishman, Wiretapping and Eavesdropping sec. 47 (Supp.1983). However, I strongly disagree with the majority’s characterization of the evidence and the application of the test to that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. FishSupreme Court of Colorado · 1983
- People v. LosinnoNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- United States v. LyonsDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1981
- United States v. Reginald Lyons, A/K/A Reggie, A/K/A Casper, United States of America v. Willie Renaldo RoysterCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1982
- State v. EarleDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984