Telephone tapping 224 L T 260, N 15 '57 1957 New York legislation on wire-tapping problems. 26 Fordham L Rev 540, Autumn '57 Admissibility of evidence procured contrary to statute [Manger v. State (Nd), 133 A 2d 78] 17 Md L Rev 357, Fall '57 Use of Recorded confidential conversation by legislative committee [Lanza v. N.Y. State Joint Legislative Comm. (N.Y.) 143 N.E. 772] 26 Fordham L Rev 556, Autumn '57 Violation of Fourth Amendment [U.S. v. Benanti, 244 F 2nd 389] 9 Mercer L Rev 222, Fall '57 Wire-tap evidence: an area of admissibility 7 De Paul L Rev AutumnWinter '57 Admissibility of evidence unlawfully obtained. A Phelan. 107 L J 727, N 15 '57 Evidence obtained through wiretapping by state officers admitted in federal prosecution [U.S. v. Benanti, 244 F 2nd 389] 106 U Ga L Rev 314, D 57 Benanti Case: State wiretap evidence and the federal exclusionary rule. 57 Colum L Rev 1159, D '57 Some aspects of wiretapping in the federal and New York jurisdictions 32 St. John's L Rev 79, D '57 Wiretapping-eavesdropping-admissibility in state courts. 24 Brooklyn L Rev 113, D '57 Court may not enjoin the use of secretly recorded conversations by legislative investigating body [Lanza v. N.Y. State Jt. Leg. Comm (N.Y.) 143 NE 2nd 772] 33 Notre Dame Law 132, D '57 Wiretapping a misnomer. C. V. Gris 1957 Tr and Tort Trends 210 '57 Mechanical aids to evidence. D. W. Elliott. 1958 Crim L R 5, Ja '58 Ethics, morals and legality of eavesdropping. L. Waldmar, E. S. Silver, 9 Brooklyn Bar 147, F '58 Admissibility in Federal courts of wiretap evidence obtained by State officers in violation of § 605 of the Fed. Comm. Act [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Supt. Ct. 155] 26 Geo Wash L Rev 465, Mr '58 Eavesdropping. H. L. Nathan. 225 L T 119, 135, 149, Mr 7-21 '58 Wiretapping a complete prohibition in the federal courts [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup. Ct 155] 30 Rocky Mt L Rev 360, Ap '58 Wiretapping [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155; Rathbun v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 151] 56 Mich L Rev 1022, Ap '58 Judicial construction of "interception" of interstate telephone communication under the Fed. Comm. Act [Rathbun v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 161] 46 Ill B J 708, Ap '58 Inadmissibility of wiretap evidence in the federal courts [Benanti v U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155] 24 Brooklyn L Rev 361, Ap '58 Federal law of wiretapping. W. L. McElroy 19 Ala Law 128, Ap '58 Recent state wiretap statutes: deficiencies of the Fed. Comm. Act corrected. 67 Yale L J. 932, Ap '58 Wiretapping-admissibility of matter illegally obtained [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155] 60 W. Va L Rev 292, Ap '58 Wiretap evidence procured by state officers without federal participation not admissible in federal court [U.S. v. Benanti, 78 Sup Ct 155] 36. Tex L Rev 677, My '58 Evidence obtained by wiretapping inadmissible in federal court, [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155] 9 Syracuse L Rev 304, Spring'58 Admissibility in Federal prosecution of wire tap evidence obtained by state officers [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155] 25 Tenn L Rev 388, Spring '58 Eavesdropping legislation in New York; Article 84 of the Penal Law and section 345A of the Civil Practice Act 9 Syracuse L Rev 282, Spring '58 Admissibility in federal court of evidence overheard on extension phone [Rathbun v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct. 161]. 19 Ohio S LJ 345 Spring '58 From Nardone to Benanti and Rathbun. E. J. Bradley, J. E. Hogan. 46 Geo L J 418, Spring '58 Admissibility in federal court of wiretap evidence obtained by state officers Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155] 7 J Pub L 211 Spring '58 Wiretap evidence procured solely by state officials inadmissible in federal court [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155] 7 De Paul L Rev 267 Spring-Summer '58 Interception of message on telephone extension with permission of receiver. [Rathbun v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 161] 22 Albany L Rev 374. Je '58 Federal Communications_Act-Wiretapping [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155] 7 Am U L Rev 112, Je '58 Evidence obtained by state officers as a result of wiretapping without participation of federal officers, held inadmissible in federal courts [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155] 4 How LJ 232, Je '58 Admissibility in federal courts of evidence obtained through wiretapping by state officials [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155] 11 Vand L Rev 932, Je '58 Wiretapping should be liberalized. P. W. Williams 30 N Y S B Bull 261 JI '58 Let's take the hypocrisy out of wiretapping. E. C. Gerhart 30 NYS B Bull 268, JI '58 Admissibility of evidence secured by wirtapping by state police officers; use of telephone extensions [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155; Rathbun v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 161] 43 Cornell L Q 696, Summer '58 Eavesdroppers: a preview. S. Dash 30 Penn B AQ 21, O '58 Wiretapping and admissibility of evidence in New York Courts 14 NYU Intra L Rev 1, N '58 State court will reject applications by law enforcement officials for statutory wiretap permits because all interception is prohibited by federal statute [Matter of Interception of Tel. Communications, 170 N Y S 2nd 84] 44 Va L Rev 1179, N '58 Wiretapping and the Supreme Court 49 J Crim L 342, N-D '58 Definition of "interception", divulgence; "use", "consent of the sender", and "persons prohibited" since the Nardone case. 8 De Paul L. Rev 86, Autumn-Winter '58 Wire-tap evidence; excluded in federal courts under Fed. Comm. Act although acquired by state officers [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155] 7 Buffalo L Rev 305, Winter '58 Wiretapping admissible as evidence in state courts [Commonwealth v. Voci (Pa) 143 A 2nd 652] 4 Vill L Rev 142, Fall '58 65-265-66- 3 Wiretapping intrastate telephone Communications; a criminal offense and a rule of evidence [U.S. v. Gris, 247 F. 2nd 860] 11 Okla L Rev 460, N '58 Notes from the Temple: telephone tapping 92 Ir L T 289, 295, N 29– D 6 '58 Admissibility in federal prosecution where procured by state authorized_wiretapping [Benanti v. U.S., 78 Sup Ct 155] 37 N C L Rev 88, D '58 America's notorious three-party line. 10 Western Res L Rev 162, Ja '59 Investigation and Wiretapping. E. C. Gerhart 26 Ins. Counsel J 279, Ap '59 Use of electronic eavesdropping device held not a violation of fourth amendment or section 605 of the Federal Communications Act [U.S. v. Silverman, 166 F. Supp. 838] 33 St Johns' L Rev 387, My '59 "Interception" in telephonic communications under § 605 of Fed. Comm. Act [State v. Giordina (N.J.) 142 A 2nd 609] 8 J Pub L 318, Spring '59 The Federal rule and the New York rule traced as to admissibility of illegally obtained and wire-tapped evidence in federal and state courts 5 N Y LF 415 O '59 State wiretap regulation not precluded by existing federal law [People v. Broady (N.Y.), 158 NE 2nd 817] 1959 U II L F 873, Fall 59 Admissibility of wiretap evidence in the Federal Courts. R. Price 14 U Miami L Rev 57, Fall '59 Wiretapping federal pre-emption. [People v. Broady (N.Y.) 158 N E 2nd 817] 26 Brooklyn L Rev 139, D '59 Use of wire tap evidence in State Courts [People v. Dinan, 172 NYS 2nd 496] 11 S CL Q 282, Winter '59 Wiretapping entanglement: how to strengthen law enforcement and preserve privacy. C. M. Brown, R. S. Peer 44 Cornell L Q 175, Winter '59 Federal Communications Act section 605 held not to pre-empt state statutes punishing wiretapping [People v. Broady (NY) 158 N.E. 2nd 817] 108 U Pa L Rev 1224, Je '60 Listening in on telephones 76 LQ Rev 1, Ja '60 Federal Communications Act of 1934 does not invalidate state wiretapping statute [People v. Broady (NY) 158 NE 2nd 817] 12 Vand L Rev 547, Mr '60 Eavesdropping and the law, A. P. Savarese Jr. 46 A B A J 263, Mr '60 Law Enforcement and "wire-tapping", E. S. Silver, 50 J Crim L 576, Mr-Ap '60 Wire-tapping eavesdropping problem: reflections on the Eavesdroppers: a symposium. 44 Minn L Rev 813, Ap '60 Law enforcement and "wire tapping", E. S. Silver. 27 Tenn L Rev 352, Spring '60 Second Circuit extends Stefanelli doctrine to bar injunction of use of wiretapped evidence in New York criminal trial [Pugach v. Dollinger, 277 F 2nd 739] 60 Colum L Rev 871, Je '60 Wiretapping: Foreword, D. Gutman; the great wiretapping debate and the crisis in law enforcement. P. M. Brown; wiretapping, D. Kenyon. 6 NY L F-263, Jl '60 Telephone tapping and listening in. 76 Scot L Rev 137, Ag '60 Preliminary injunction granted restraining state officers from introducing illegally obtained wire tap evidence [Pugach v. Dollinger. 275 F. 2nd 503] 12 Syracuse L Rev 103, Fall '60 Listening in. 230 L T 146, S 9'60 End to privacy. J. V. Barry. 2 MULR 443, N '60 Federal injunction will not lie against state officers' use of wire tap evidence in state courts [Pugach v. Dollinger, 277 F 2nd 739] 48 Calif L Rev 835, D '60 Injunction against use of wire tap evidence in state criminal prosecution denied [Pugach v. Dollinger, 280 F 2nd 521] 35 St. John's L Rev 163, D '60 Search and Seizure-tele-communication [Silverman v. U.S. 275 F. 2nd 503] 25 Albany L Rev 157 Ja '61 State wiretap evidence enjoined. 25 Albany L Rev 157, Ja '61 [Pugach v. Dollinger, 275 F. 2d 503] Denial of Federal court to enjoin divulgence of wire tap evidence in state criminal trial [Pugach v. Dollinger, 277 F 2nd 739] 8 U CLAL Rev 198, Ja '61 Wiretapping-State law 51 Crim L J 534, Ja '61 Federal injunction to enjoin state officers from introducing wiretap evidence in state court denied [Pugach v. Dollinger, 81 Sup Ct 650] 29 Fordham L Rev 586, F '61 Injunction to prevent divulgence of evidence obtained by wiretaps in state criminal prosecutions. [Pugach v. Dollinger, 81 Sup Ct 650] 40 Neb L Rev 529 Ap '61 Federal injunction to restrain use in state criminal trial [Pugach v. Dollinger, 81 Sup Ct 650] 27 Brooklyn L Rev 362, Sp '61 Wiretapping: the federalism problem. 51 J Crim L 630. Mr-Ap '61 Suit in federal court to enjoin testimony in state proceeding [Pugach v. Dollinger, 277 F 2nd 739] 36 Wash L Rev 93, Spring '61 Open ear: surreptitious conversation monitoring devices. 12 Syracuse L Rev 361, Spring '61 Wiretapping: the need for Congressional action-the Dodd proposal and meeting this need. 6 St. Louis U LJ 436, Spring '61 "The potent, the omnipresent teacher": the Supreme Court and wiretapping. B. J. Goerge Jr. 47 Va L Rev 751 Je '61 Evidence obtained by electronic listening devices [Silverman v. U.S., 81 Sup Ct 679] 24 Ga B J 135, Ag '61 Enjoining introduction of wire tap evidence in state criminal proceedings. [Pugach v. Dollinger, 81 Sup Ct 650] 46 Ia L Rev 915, Summer '61 Lawyers' responsibility for due process and law enforcement, J. E. Lumbard. 12 Syracuse L Rev 431, Summer '61 Federal injunction denied to prevent use of wire tap evidence in state courts [Pugach v. Dollinger, 81 Sup Ct. 650] 22 Ohio S L J 755 Autumn '61 Wire tapping and electronic surveillance; a neglected constitutional consideration. D. B. King, M. A. Batt. 66 Dick L Rev 17 Fall '61 Electronic listening devices [Silverman v. U.S., 81 Sup Ct. 679] 40 NCL Rev 115, D '61 Federal injunction will not issue to prohibit wiretap evidence in state courts [Pugach v. Dollinger, 81 Sup Ct 650]. 50 Ky L J 257. Winter '61-'62 Eavesdropping: four legal aspects 3 M U L R 364. My '62 Electronic eavesdropping [Lanza v. New York, 82 Sup Ct 1218] 24 U Pitt L Rev 182, O'62 Wiretap evidence from the viewpoint of law enforcement officer. 17 Wyo L J 49, Fall '62 Admissibility of wiretap evidence in state courts [People v. Dinan (N.Y.), 183 NE 2nd 689] 12 De Paul L Rev 159, AutumnWinter '62 Wiretap evidence-post Mapp admissibility in State courts [Williams v. Ball, 294 F 2d 94] 8 Wayne L Rev 351, Winter '62 Wiretaps-admissible notwithstanding Fed. Comm. Act. § 605Mapp. v. Ohio not controlling [People v. Dinan (N.Y.) 183 NE 2d 689] 27 Albany L Rev 141, Ja '63 Electronic eavesdropping [Silverman v. U.S., 81 Sup Ct. 679] 12 Am UL Rev 83, Ja '63 Approach to the problems of wiretapping. N. D. Katzenbach. 32 FRD 107, Mr '63 Remarks on the Attorney General's program on wiretapping. S. Dash 32 FR D 114, Mr '63 Wiretapping and eavesdropping. 18 Record 157, Mr '63 Neither Mapp v. Ohio nor the Fed. Comm. Act renders wiretap evidence inadmissible in state criminal proceedings [People v. Dinan (N.Y.) 183 N.E. 2nd 689] 111 U Pa L Rev 832, Ap '63 Wiretap admissibility [People v. Dinan (N.Y.), 183 NE 2nd 689]. 11 Kan L Rev 563, My '63 Law of wiretapping and eavesdropping, an area of anomalies, inconsistencies and conradictions. P. Augustine, Jr. 1 Am Crim L Q 4, My '63 People's case for wiretapping. E. S. Silver 1 Am Crim LQ 15, My '63 How Can wiretapping be utilized and controlled? [People v. Dinan (N.Y.), 183 NE 2nd 689] 20 Wash & Lee L Rev 128, Spring '63 Use of wiretap evidence in trials by courts martial. F. O. House. 5 JAG Bull 9, My-Je '63 Big ear, the private eye, and lawman. Y. Kamisar. 33, Je '63 Admissibility of wiretap evidence in criminal cases. 120. Summer '63 36 Wis B Bulj 16 U Fla L Rev Wiretapping [LaCrone v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. (Ohio) 182 NE 2d 15] 32 U Con L Rev 403. Summer '63 Wiretapping [Lopez v. U.S., 83 Sup Ct 1381] 30 Brooklyn L Rev 119, D '63 Wiretapping, a history of federal legislation and Supreme Court decisions. A Gasque. 15 SCL Rev 593. '63 Electronic eavesdropping. R. C. Donnelly. 38 Notre Dame Law 667 Symposium '63 Federal wiretap law-needed weapon against organized crime. 13 De Paul L Rev 98, Autumn-Winter '63 Wiretapping [State v. Cory (Wash) 382 P 2nd 1019] 13 Catholic U L Rev 65, Ja '64 Tape recording as evidence. G. E. Parker 6 Crim L Q 314, F '64 |