“[a] state officer may receive and use wiretap information only to the extent such receipt and use is appropriate to the proper performance of his official duties ... [and] the scope of a state officer's official duties is defined by state, not federal, law____”
How later courts described this case
- “[a] state officer may receive and use wiretap information only to the extent such receipt and use is appropriate to the proper performance of his official duties ... [and] the scope of a state officer's official duties is defined by state, not federal, law____”
- federal wiretapping law controls conflicting state law under Supremacy Clause
- use of Title III information to make an arrest and conduct subsequent search
- “Federal officers are authorized to wiretap under s 2516(1), regardless of the provisions of state law.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
While I believe Judge Duniway’s views on “no standing” are correct, a majority has apparently rejected his contentions. Since we have reached this point, I now concur in Judge Choy’s opinion.