Skip to main content

State v. Mayes

Citations

  • 579 P.2d 999
  • 20 Wash. App. 184

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that wiretap interception in California, which was in compliance with California law, but not with Washington law, was admissible in Washington court
  • holding that wiretap interception in California, which was in compliance with California law, but not with Washington law, was admissible in Washington court
  • Washington statute prohibiting admissibility of information obtained from interceptions made “in violation of” the statute does not require exclusion of evidence obtained from interception made in California and valid under California law
  • Washington statute prohibiting admissibility of information obtained from interceptions made \in violation of\ the statute does not require exclusion of evidence obtained from interception made in California and valid under California law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Pearson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.