2 Cal.4th 1088, S019773, People v. Otto

Citation: 2 Cal.4th 1088, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 596, 831 P.2d 1178

Opinion Judge: [10] Arabian

Party Name: People v. Otto

Attorney: [7] Laurance S. Smith and Mark L. Christiansen, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Defendants and Appellants. [8] John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. Lungren, Attorneys General, Richard B. Iglehart and George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, John H. Sugiyama, Assistant Attor...

Case Date: July 09, 1992

Court: California Supreme Court

Linked as:

Document options

Printable page
Email this

Extract

2 Cal.4th 1088, S019773, People v. Otto

No longer available (Autolink)

See the full content of this document

This document cites

US Code - 18 U.S.C. § 2510 Definitions
US Code - 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral, Or Electronic Communications Prohibited
US Code - 18 U.S.C. § 2515 Prohibition of Use As Evidence of Intercepted Wire Or Oral Communications
US Code - 18 U.S.C. § 2518 Procedure For Interception of Wire, Oral, Or Electronic Communications
US Code - 18 U.S.C. § 2520 Recovery of Civil Damages Authorized

See all quotations