United States v. Alphonse Cirillo

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming district court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion based on failure to minimize, without holding full adversary-type hearing, in the absence of evidence that substantial number of non-pertinent conversations had been intercepted unreasonably
• affirming district court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion based on failure to minimize, without holding full adversary-type hearing, in the absence of evidence that substantial number of non-pertinent conversations had been intercepted unreasonably
• affirming district court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion based on failure to minimize, without holding full adversary-type hearing, in the absence of evidence that substantial number of non-pertinent conversations had been intercepted unreasonably
• “There must be some basis for inferring that the defendant knew about the enterprise and intended to participate in it or to make it succeed”
• omission of K.S.A. 22-2516[5]-type minimization directive a “technical defect” overlooked where execution of surveillance conducted according to statutory minimization requirements
• interpreting identical New York statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).