The court's summary denial of the portion of defendant's suppression motion that sought to suppress eavesdropping evidence on the ground of lack of CPL 700.50 (3) notice was proper. As relevant to this case, the statute directs that the named subject of an eavesdropping warrant, such as defendant, be notified of the existence of the warrant within 90 days of its termination.
Federal courts have held that under 18 USC § 2518 (8) (d), the federal equivalent of...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
