Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): electronic, mechanical, or other device (as defined in [18 U.S.C. § 2510(5) ]) in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States[.] 18 U.S.C. 3504. An aggrieved party’s claim must “appear to have a ‘colorable’ basis before it may function to trigger the government’s obligation to respond under § 3504.” United States v. Pacella, 622 F.2d 640, 643 (2d Cir.1980) (quoting United States v. Yanagita, 552 F.2d 940, 943 (2d Cir.1977)). A respondent can satisfy the requirements of § 3504 by producing affidavits asserting that no evidence to be used in the proceeding was obtained by unlawful surveillance, or by producing a court order showing that the surveillance was lawful. United States v. Kember, 648 F.2d 1354, 1369 (D.C.Cir.1980); In re Millow, 529 F.2d 770, 773 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). Here, the defendants had no obligation to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees (B) holding black box labeled sel was sufficient structure because it was a well known electronic structure and performs a common electronic function (C) holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold (D) holding that evidence was sufficient for jury to determine date employment was to begin (E) holding that the governments submission of a court order authorizing electronic surveillance was a sufficient response to a claim that evidence was a product of illegal wiretaps
Output (English): holding that evidence was sufficient for jury to determine date employment was to begin