United States v. Torres
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
751 F.2d 875 (1984)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
The United States was investigating members (defendants) of an organization that violently advocated the independence of Puerto Rico (organization). The organization had bombed several buildings using explosives that had been created and stored in safe houses. A member of the organization was arrested and began working with investigators, helping investigators discover a Chicago safe house that was being used by the organization. The government then obtained a court order authorizing the government to install listening devices and television cameras in every room of the safe house. The court concluded that the requirements of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Title III) were met. The investigators sought the authorization for television surveillance because they were concerned that participants would interfere with pure audio observation (e.g., through playing loud music or using code words). The television cameras recorded the assembly of a bomb. Eventually, the organization members were prosecuted. Before trial, the district-court judge suppressed the videotapes and the evidence gathered therefrom. The court reasoned that there was no statutory or other legal basis for the original order that had authorized the television cameras in the safe house.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
