Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 618

Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160

Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 168

District of Columbia v. Little, 178 F. 2d 13 (C.A.
D.C., 1950), aff'd 339 U. S. 1

Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307

[ocr errors]

12, 33, 58

49

48

.

[ocr errors]

11, 12, 13, 58

16

66,70

Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480 .

66

71

Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 Gouled v. United States, 225 U. S. 298 ... . . 46, 47, 49, 50 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479

Hayden v. Warden, 363 F. 2d 647 (C.A. 4, 1966

49

[blocks in formation]

People v. Beshany, 43 Misc. 2d 521, 252 N.Y.S. 2d 110

(S. Ct. Queens Co. 1964)

People v. Cohen, 18 N.Y. 2d 650, cert. denied
U.S., 17 L. Ed. 2d 438

People v. Leonard Grossman, 45 Misc. 2d 557 (S. Ct.

[ocr errors]

Kings Co. 1965), reversed 27 A.D. 2d 572 (2nd
Dept. 1966)

66

46

46, 47, 66

People v. McCall, 17 N. Y. 2d 152, 269 N.Y.S. 2d 396
People v. Rial, 25 A. D. 2d 28, 266 N.Y.S. 2d 426 (4th
Dept. 1966)

....

People v. Thayer, 47 Cal. Rptr. 780, 408 P. 2d 108 ..

Schipani v. United States,

2d 428

U.S.

17 L. Ed.

PAGE

45

47

50

12, 33, 34, 58

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 16 L. Ed. 2d

908

50

..

.... •

11, 12, 14, 57

48

Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505
Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476 ....
State v. Bisaccia, 45 N. J. 504, 213 A. 2d 185 ....

United States v. Kancso, 252 F. 2d 220 (C. A. 2, 1958)
United States v. Pollack, 64 F. Supp. 554 (D.N.J.,
1946-per Forman, J.)
United States v. Ramirez, 279 F. 2d 712 (C. A. 2
1960)

...

United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102 ...

United States v. Vokell, 251 F. 2d 333 (C. A. 2, 1958), cert. den. 356 U. S. 962

Wong v. Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 ...

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Md. Ann. Code 1957, as amended, Art. 35, §§ 94-96 ..

60

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

11 A.L.R. 3rd 1296 ("Eavesdropping As Violating Right of Privacy")

58 A.L.R. 2d 1024, "Admissibility of Sound Recordings In Evidence"

....

Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote (Ozell's Revision
of the Translation of Peter Motteux), pp. xx-xxi
(1930)
Note, Eavesdropping and the Constitution: A Re-
appraisal Of The Fourth Amendment Framework,
50 Minn. L. Rev. 378 ....

Police Power And Individual Freedom, Sowle ed.
1962, pp. 104-128)

Symposium, Constitutional Problems In The Administration Of Criminal Law, "Electronic Eavesdropping: Can It Be Authorized?", Northwestern Univ. L. Rev., vol. 59 (Nov.-Dec. 1964), at pp. 639-640

49

78, 79

26

59

59

47

77-540 O-67-81

[blocks in formation]

There is no written opinion by any of the Courts below. In the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, where there was an affirmance without opinion, Chief Judge Desmond and Judge Fuld dissented in an opinion which is reported in 18 N. Y. 2d 638, 640 (R. 691). The "memorandum" report of the affirmance (without opinion) by the Court of Appeals is reported in 18 N.Y. 2d 638 (R. 691). The "memorandum" report of the affirmance without opinion by the Appellate Division, First Department, Supreme Court of New York, is reported in 25 A. D. 2d 718 (R. 676).

2

Jurisdiction

The order (remittitur) of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York here sought to be reviewed was dated July 7, 1966 (R. 689). That order affirmed, without opinion, a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, entered March 17, 1966 (R. 676), which had affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court of New York, New York County (R. 583), upon a verdict convicting the within petitioner Ralph Berger on two counts of conspiracy to bribe a public official (R. 580). The order allowing certiorari is dated December 5, 1966 (R. 692).

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(3), since the petitioner is claiming rights, privileges or immunities under the Constitution of the United States (Fourth Amendment search and seizure, Fifth Amendment self incrimination, Ninth Amendment reserved right of privacy, Fourteenth Amendment due process), and since there is necessarily drawn in question the validity of a State statute (N. Y. Code Crim. Proc. § 813-a-ex parte eavesdrop orders) on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

Questions Presented

Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to bribe the Chairman of the New York State Liquor Authority. The State prosecutive authorities have stipulated that without the leads and evidence obtained through certain electronic eavesdrops of the "room" or "bug" type, petitioner could not have been indicted, prosecuted or convicted. The questions are (as limited by the order allowing certiorari):

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »