Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Joseph Schneider v. New York
Paid petition · Court of Appeals of New York, No. 41 · judgment June 3, 2021
Before the decision, about 1.6× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a petition filed soon after the judgment below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and down for a state or local-government respondent.
Question presented
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 prohibits wiretapping except as provided in the enabling statute, 18 U.S.C. §2516. Section 2516(1) authorizes federal judges to issue eavesdropping warrants, and section 2516(2) is the enabling statute that authorizes state judges to issue wiretap orders. Under Title III states are free to adopt wiretapping procedures either more restrictive than federal law or prohibit wiretapping completely. Joseph Schneider, a California resident, has never set foot in New York, never made calls to or received calls from New York, and never committed any crimes in New York. A New York Judge issued wiretap orders on his mobile phone in California, and the signal was re-directed to a listening post in Brooklyn where police overheard the communications regarding his gambling operations – none of which took place in New York. The question presented is: Do State Judges have authority under Title III’s enabling statute to issue wiretap orders beyond their state borders as here where a New York Judge
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Stephen N. Preziosi
Law Office of Stephen N. Preziosi, PC
For respondent
Leonard Joblove
Kings County District Attorney's Office
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Oct 12 2021Petition DENIED.
- Sep 15 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021.
- Sep 10 2021Waiver of right of respondent The People of The State of New York to respond filed.
- Aug 18 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 20, 2021)