Charles J. Resha (84-5012), Jack Dickens (84-5015), Homer Lee Scott (84-5016) v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• refraining from deciding whether disclosure was improper because suppression is not authorized
• suppression of evidence not available for unauthorized disclosures in violation of § 2517
• “We construe § 2515 to permit suppression of evidence only if that evidence was derived from unlawful, improper or unauthorized interceptions of wire or oral communications. It does not authorize suppression for disclosures of such information, even if they violate § 2517.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).