LaSorsa 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.

• requiring suppression of conversations of party who was neither named in order nor conversing with named party, when order permitted only “the interception of telephonic communications of [named suspect] with co-conspirators, accomplices and agents”; id., 273
• \too brief a period for an eavesdropper even with experience to identify the caller and characterize the conversation.\
• effect on commerce found where payment of $150 was extorted by local official from tavern owner who purchased liquor from state distributors who in turn purchased liquor interstate
• when police are merely assisting a private party who has authority to search and a legitimate need to do so, courts are reluctant to exclude the resulting evidence
• when police are merely assisting a private party who has authority to search and a legitimate need to do so, courts are reluctant to exclude the resulting evidence
• two minutes is “too brief a period for an eavesdropper even with experience to identify the caller and characterize the conversation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).