United States v. Bernard Harrigan
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
COFFIN, Chief Judge.
Following the termination of a judicially authorized wiretap, the government has a statutory responsibility to inform the issuing judge of the identities of the persons whose conversations were overheard so that the judge may then decide who should receive notice of the interception pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(d). 1 In United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413, 97 S.Ct. 658, 50 L.Ed.2d 652 (1977), the Supreme Court held that § 2518(10)(a) 2 does not require the suppression of the wiretap evidence when this duty is violated. In Donovan the Court left open the question…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Iannelli v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Berger v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. GiordanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- United States v. WinterCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981
- United States v. Victor Santarpio, A/K/A "Lefty", No. 76-1178Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1977
- United States v. One Star Class Sloop Sailboat Built in 1930Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2008
- United States v. RodriguesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2017
- United States v. Bernard HarriganCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1978
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.