Case ID: us_392/html/0923-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 885.
    No. 1007,
    Misc.
    Ivanov v. United States; and Butenko v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir.

Motion to amend petition and petition for writ of certiorari in No. 885 granted. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari in No. 1007, Misc., granted, and case transferred to appellate docket. Cases set for oral argument immediately following reargument in No. 133, Alderman et al. v. United States, supra, p. 919. Grants of certiorari in both of these cases limited to the following questions:

On the assumption that there was electronic surveillance of petitioner or a codefendant which violated the Fourth Amendment,

(1) Should the records of such electronic surveillance be subjected to in camera inspection by the trial judge to determine the necessity of compelling the Government to make disclosure of such records to petitioner, and if so to what extent?

(2) If in camera inspection is to be authorized or ordered, by what standards (for example, relevance, and considerations of national security or injury to persons or reputations) should the trial judge determine whether the records are to be turned over to the defendant?

(3) What standards are to be applied in determining whether petitioner has standing to object to the use against him of information obtained from such illegal surveillance? More specifically, if illegal surveillance took place at the premises of a particular defendant,

(a) Does that defendant have standing to object to the use against him of any or all information obtained from the illegal surveillance, whether or not he was present on the premises or party to the overheard conversation?

(b) Does a codefendant have standing to object to the use against him of any or all information obtained from the illegal surveillance, whether or not he was present on the premises or party to the overheard conversation?

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions and these petitions.

Edward Bennett Williams for petitioner in No. 885.

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Kevin T. Maroney, and Lee B. Anderson for the United States in both cases.

Reported below: 384 F. 2d 554.