CLINTON

v.

VIRGINIA

Citator

Cited By

• Hajdu v. State, 189 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
  …t to the Constitution of the United States. In that case, a microphone was lowered in an air shaft to a grille in defendant’s apartment, which the court held to constitute an invasion of privacy. In Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 158, 84 S.Ct. 1186, 12 L.Ed.2d 213, a microphone was used by police officers in the premises of the defendant. The Supreme Court of the United States held that this was a trespass and the evidence obtained thereby was suppressed, thus following the ruling in Silverman v. United State…
• Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1969)
  …ficate that Katz gave it. They demonstrated to all who were willing to receive the message that Olmstead would not shield eavesdropping because it took place outside the physical property line. Silverman v. United States, supra; Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U. S. 158 (1964); Berger v. New York, supra. Not for 17 years, until this day, has this Court applied Olmstead to sanction a Fourth Amendment violation because of Olmstead’s peculiar distinction.6 Statements by the Department of Justice in recent years have…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Swanson v. Stan Levy, 509 F.2d 859 (9th Cir. 1975)
  …ule 81 and not present here. One purpose of requiring findings of fact is to aid this court by affording it a clear understanding of the basis of decision of the district court. United States v. Continental Oil Co., 377 U.S. 161, 162, 84 S.Ct. 1155, 12 L.Ed.2d 213 (1964), separate memorandum of Harlan, J. The requirement that the district court find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law must be fairly observed and may not be waived by the parties. Waialua Agr. Co. v. Maneja, 178 F. 2…

Authorities Cited

• KER et ux. v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1963)
• Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1961)