Hebrew v. TDCJ

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a violation of the requirement that the application identify all those likely to be overheard, 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(b)(iv
• holding that suppression was not required due to the government’s inadvertant failure to provide inventory notice where the defendant was not prejudiced because the notice was provided in discovery
• holding that a Title III wiretap warrant is not made unconstitutional by “failure to identify every individual who could be expected to be overheard,” but “the complete absence of prior judicial authorization would make an intercept unlawful”
• holding that a Title III wiretap warrant is not made unconstitutional by “failure to identify every individual who could be expected to be overheard,” but “the complete absence of prior judicial authorization would make an intercept unlawful”
• holding that a violation of the requirement that the application identify all those likely to be overheard, 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(b)(iv), did not mandate suppression because the requirement did not play a central role in the decision to authorize surveillance
• stating that § 2158(10(a)(i) requires \a broad inquiry into the government's intercept procedures to determine whether the government's actions transgressed the 'core concerns' of the statute\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).