Citation network
Lee Vs. Florida
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 17, 1968
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 378 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Lee v. FloridaSearch
-
U.S. 378 (1968) Lee v. FloridaSearch
-
the Florida courts in view of the express federal prohibition against divulgence of recordings so procured. Schwartz v. TexasSearch
-
and recording of all conversations on the line. What was done here was a far cry from the police activity in Rathbun v. UnitedSearch
-
as part of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1103, six years after the Court had said, in Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
In Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 302 U. S. 382 , 302 U. S. 383 . Fifteen years later, in Schwartz v. TexasSearch
-
officers could lawfully be received in evidence in state criminal trials. That case was decided in the shadow of Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution is nonetheless admissible in a state court, Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
while such evidence, if obtained by a federal officer, would be clearly inadmissible in a federal court. Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
Ibid. But in Benanti v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 392 U. S. 385 After the Benanti decision, therefore, the only remaining support for Schwartz v. TexasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
supra, was the holding in Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
as evidence. That doctrinal underpinning of the Schwartz decision was, of course, completely removed by Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
the doctrine of Schwartz v. TexasSearch
-
cannot survive the demise of Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
Finally, our decision today is counseled by experience. The hope was expressed in Schwartz v. TexasSearch
-
Lee v. StateSearch
-
Perez v. StateSearch
-
Williams v. StateSearch
-
Griffith v. StateSearch
-
Barber v. StateSearch
-
Section 605 prohibits interception and divulgence of intrastate, as well as interstate, communications. Weiss v. UnitedSearch
-
It was not until two Terms later, in Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
See also the second Nardone case, Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
Misc.2d 543, 198 N.Y.S.2d 572 (N.Y.Ct.Gen.Sess.). Compare Judge Waterman's concurring opinion in Pugach v. DollingerSearch
-
Compare Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
In Pugach v. KleinSearch
-
Simons v. O'ConnorSearch
-
United States v. GruberSearch
-
United States v. GrisSearch
-
States, 364 U. S. 206 . MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting. In 1937, Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
forbids the introduction of intercepted and divulged telephone conversations in federal courts. In Schwartz v. TexasSearch
-
to exclude such intercepted telephone messages from state trials. The effect of this holding is to overrule Schwartz v. TexasSearch
-
The Court's holding is made despite the fact that Congress itself has not changed the section. Nor does Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
and some civil remedies might be implied as a matter of federal law, cf. J. I. Case Co. v. BorakSearch
-
on such interceptions. This statutory question does not involve any constitutional exclusionary rule, cf. Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 643 , or the supervisory power of this Court over the lower federal courts, cf. Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 232 U. S. 383 . More than 15 years ago, in Schwartz v. TexasSearch
-
Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lee v. FloridaSearch
-
Schwartz v. TexasSearch
-
Rathbun v. UnitedSearch
-
Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
of Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
Weeks v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial