Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A Florida appeals court has effectively opened a loophole in the state's long-standing law against recording telephone conversations without the permission of both sides of the call, ruling that ...
The California Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 [61]).
United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant.
On July 18, 2018, the U.S. District Court of Northern California ruled in United States v. Artis that the evidence obtained from a stingray device must be suppressed due to deficiencies in the warrants obtained by the Federal agents. [35] On September 5, 2018, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal issued two rulings. In the first, Florida
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
In light of the arrest of a South Carolina government employee for tape recording a conversation between co-workers, I thought I'd discuss a question I'm asked all the time in my law practice: ...
District court of appeal judges, like Florida Supreme Court justices, are first recommended by the Florida Judicial Nominating Commission. They are then appointed by the governor of Florida , but have retention elections every six years, in which voters are asked on the ballot to vote whether the judge should be retained in office.
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the matter of whether wiretapping of private telephone conversations, conducted by federal agents without a search warrant with recordings subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the target’s rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.