Punch and Jurists

U.S. v. Salemme, No. 94-10287 (D.Mass.) (978 F.Supp. 343) (May 22, 1997) (Judge Mark L. Wolf) by Here the Court stated that: "In contrast to the requirements concerning probable cause and prior applications [for a wiretap order]. . . ., the government's statutory obligation to make 'a full and complete …

U.S. v. Padilla-Pena, No. 97-1297 (8th Cir.) (129 F.3d 457) (November 6, 1997) (Judge John R. Gibson) by United States v. Wardlaw, 977 F.Supp. 1481 (N.D.Ga. 1997) (Judge Shoob) Both of these cases deal with various aspects of the Federal wire-tap laws. In Padilla-Pena the defendants claimed that the Government …

U.S. v. Killingsworth, No. 96-6021 (10th Cir.) (117 F.3d 1159) (June 30, 1997) (Judge David M. Ebel) by Case rejected claims that the Government had failed to meet the necessity and minizimations requirements of its application for a wiretap order and its procedures after the wiretap was in place.

U.S. v. Castillo-Garcia, No. 96-1259 (10th Cir.) (117 F.3d 1179) (June 30, 1997) (Judge David M. Ebel) by Court held that Government failed to show it took normal investigative procedures to meet the "necessity requirements" set forth in 18 USC § 2518(1)(c) to support a wiretap order. This is an …

U.S. v. Killingsworth, No. 96-6021 (10th Cir.) (117 F.3d 1159) (June 30, 1997) (Judge David M. Ebel) by Case rejected claims that the Government had failed to meet the necessity and minizimations requirements of its application for a wiretap order and its procedures after the wiretap was in place.