Limits on wiretap orders
Dahda v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court left the appeals court’s ruling in place in the Dahda brothers’ wiretap-evidence case.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 8-0 · May 14, 2018 · Opinion by Justice Breyer
- What it’s about
- The Dahda brothers asked courts to exclude evidence gathered under wiretap orders approved by a federal judge in Kansas, arguing the orders went beyond the judge’s territorial authority.
- Who it affects
- The appeals court’s ruling remains in place in the Dahda brothers’ challenge to evidence gathered under those wiretap orders.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court reached the same result as the appeals court (affirmed its ruling), but said the orders were not invalid on their face: they contained the information required by law, and extra language allowing interception outside the judge’s territory did not invalidate them.
Title III is the federal law that sets rules for court-approved wiretaps.
Question presented
Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge's territorial jurisdiction?
What the Court decided
Holding
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Gorsuch, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
What's next
The Court has finished this docket action; no further Supreme Court step is listed.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Dahda
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Questions Presented
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.