Jack Holland Anthony v. United States of America, Jack Holland Anthony v. United States v. Vernon v. Sisney, Intervenor-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing the Government’s affidavit need not establish to a “certainty that the objects sought will be found as a result of the search”
• reasoning that since an illegal wiretap device had to be constructed it was reasonable to assume evidence related to its assemblage would be found at a suspect’s home
• stating that we are confined to the record on appeal and powerless to build a new record
• stating that judicial review is limited to evidence in the record
• finding Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e) “allows a party to supplement the record on appeal,” but “does not grant a license to build a new record”
• explaining it was reasonable to assume the defendant’s residence would contain evidence of illegal wiretapping because recording devices must be assembled and he might have assembled the device at his residence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).