Billy W. Bromell v. Theodore James Smolenski

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a search pursuant to an otherwise valid warrant could conceivably still run afoul of substantive reasonableness requirement of Fourth Amendment
• noting that the Federal Wiretap Act was \[e]nacted in the wake of Katz v. United States \
• noting that the Supreme Court has read Rule 41 “very broadly in view of its language”
• declining to hold television surveillance per se unconstitutional, but recognizing its clear potential for abuse
• relying on Title I as guide for constitutional requirements because it was \careful legislative attempt to solve a very similar problem\
• video surveillance is even more invasive of privacy than wiretapping and bugging, just as strip search is more invasive than pat-down search

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).