STREET

v.

NEW YORK

Citator

Cited By

• Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1969)
  …l three cases, the District Court must develop the relevant facts and decide if the Government’s electronic surveillance was unlawful. Our assumption, for present purposes, is that the surveillance was illegal. In each case the grant of certiorari, 392 U. S. 923, was limited to the following questions: “On the assumption that there was electronic surveillance of petitioner or a codefendant which violated the Fourth Amendment, “(1) Should the records of such electronic surveillance be subjected to in camer…
• Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1969)
  …m, Second Department, affirmed without opinion. Leave was granted to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, and after plenary consideration that court unanimously affirmed. 20 N. Y. 2d 231, 229 N. E. 2d 187 (1967). We noted probable jurisdiction. 392 U. S. 923 (1968).3 [*580] Street argues that his conviction was unconstitutional for three different reasons. First, he claims that § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, is overbroad, both on its face and as applied, because the section makes it a crime “publicly [to] d…
• United States v. Nardello, 393 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1969)
  …that the accused be a public official. Since appellees were not public officials, the indictment was therefore defective.2 The United States appealed directly [*289] to this Court pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 3731 and probable jurisdiction was noted. 392 U. S. 923 (1968). Although Congress directed that content should be given to the term “extortion” in § 1952 by resort to state law, it otherwise left that term undefined.3 At common law a public official who under color of office obtained the property of ano…