United States v. Albert Louis Keen

How courts have described this case

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

• \[w]ire taps obtained with the consent of one party to a conversation do not violate the fourth amendment\
• “Section 2511(2)(c) is worded as an exception to [the] general prohibition of judicially non-authorized wire taps, not as a positive authorization of such taps.”
• “Section 2511(2)(c) is worded as an exception to [the] general prohibition of judicially non-authorized wire taps, not as a positive au- thorization of such taps.”
• “[E]vidence obtained in violation of neither the Constitution nor federal law is admissible in federal courts, even though obtained in violation of state law.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).