Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): federal statute provides a requirement of thirty days after the expiration of an order or denial that the issuing judge report to the administrative office of the United States Court in significant detail. In these cases, we face the constitutional interest of the sanctity and privacy of home. Consequently, close judicial scrutiny should be exercised. United States v. Kalustian, 529 F.2d 585 (9th Cir.1975). Cf. People v. Yanez, 178 A.D.2d 357, 577 N.Y.S.2d 621 (1991). Inevitably, the federal statutory requirements represent the minimum constitutional criteria for electronic surveillance and does not preclude Wyoming from enacting more stringent standards. See People v. Otto, 2 Cal.4th 1088, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 596, 831 P.2d 1178, cert, denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 414, 121 L.Ed.2d 338 (1992) (<HOLDING>). D. No Issue of Retroactivity As it happens, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in a murder case improper wire tapping of telephone calls between the victims wife and her lover recorded by the victim before his death required reversal for suppression (B) holding that despite limiting instruction letter written by murder victim shortly before his death was improperly admitted (C) holding admissible testimony of the victims daughter regarding a telephone call from the defendant to the victim hours before the victims death and the victims emotions following the telephone call where defendant claimed accident (D) holding that the defendant plainly consented to the recording and monitoring of his telephone calls at both facilities because he used the telephone after receiving notice that his calls would be recorded andor monitored (E) holding as relevant in a murder case a history of domestic violence involving defendant and his victim
Output (English): holding that despite limiting instruction letter written by murder victim shortly before his death was improperly admitted