Citation network
Kaiser Vs. New York
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 24, 1969
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
-
Kaiser v. NewSearch
-
York - 394 U.S. 280 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Kaiser v. NewSearch
-
York, 394 U.S. 280 (1969) Kaiser v. NewSearch
-
a (held violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for overbreadth in Berger v. NewSearch
-
held admissible in state criminal trial, since the wiretapping occurred before (1) Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
only if there was a trespass or a physical invasion of the speaker's constitutionally protected area, and (2) Lee v. FloridaSearch
-
of the Federal Communications Act to state trials, and both Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
States and Lee v. FloridaSearch
-
have been held to apply prospectively only ( Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
States, ante, p. 394 U. S. 244 , and Fuller v. AlaskaSearch
-
a, the statute with which this Court subsequently dealt in Berger v. NewSearch
-
Page 394 U. S. 282 Not until last Term in Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
conducted without such an intrusion was not an unlawful search or seizure. That rule was not modified by Berger v. NewSearch
-
interpretation of the Fourth Amendment with respect to wiretapping until it was overruled by Katz. And in Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
inadmissible under the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Page 394 U. S. 283 and Fourteenth Amendments. Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
the Federal Communications Act require exclusion of the intercepted conversations. Until our decision last Term in Lee v. FloridaSearch
-
to the States, but that decision has also been held to apply only prospectively. Fuller v. AlaskaSearch
-
Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs in the result for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinions in Berger v. NewSearch
-
York, 388 U. S. 41 , 388 U. S. 70 , and Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
knew the circumstances under which the incriminating statements had been made. In contrast to the situation in Miller v. PateSearch
-
See Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
Nardone v. UnitedSearch
-
by federal officers was not admissible in federal criminal trials. See also Benanti v. UnitedSearch
-
a. The Court affirms the conviction on the ground that today's decision in Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
nontrespassory wiretap will be inadmissible only if the tapping occurred after the date of the decision in Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
a, the wiretapping was valid under the Warrants Clause of the Fourth Amendment. See Ker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 643 (1961). However, I believe that this approach is foreclosed by this Court's decision in Berger v. NewSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Kaiser v. NewSearch
-
Berger v. NewSearch
-
Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Lee v. FloridaSearch
-
Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
and Fuller v. AlaskaSearch
-
and Fourteenth Amendments. Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
and Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
Miller v. PateSearch
-
Benanti v. UnitedSearch
-
the Warrants Clause of the Fourth Amendment. See Ker v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Mapp v. OhioSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial