United States v. Eddie Hodge and Nathaniel Robertson

How courts have described this case

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

• “It is well settled that there is no violation of the Act if the interception was, as here, authorized by a party to the conversation.”
• “[The defendant], by his undisputed testimony, effectively raised an entrapment defense by arguing that he had not previously dealt in drugs but was only, just this one time, responding to the plea of a friend in trouble.”
• the court held that since no one has a constitutionally protected expectation that the person to whom he voluntarily reveals incriminating information will keep it secret, the consensual interceptions permitted under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c) do not violate the Fourth Amendment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).