Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. New York Telephone Co.

• 1977 • 434 U.S. 159 • Burger Court
In the United States v. New York Telephone Co., 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have the authority to order a telephone company to assist law enforcement in executing a pen register warrant. A pen register is a device used by law enforcement agencies to record all numbers dialed from a particular phone line. The case arose when New York Telephone Company refused to install such devices on its premises at the request of government officials who had obtained warrants for their...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1977
Docket: 76-835
434 U.S. 159
98 S. Ct. 364
54 L. Ed. 2d 376
1977 U.S. LEXIS 161
Argued: Oct 03, 1977

United States v. New York Telephone Co.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. New York Telephone Co., 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have the authority to order a telephone company to assist law enforcement in executing a pen register warrant. A pen register is a device used by law enforcement agencies to record all numbers dialed from a particular phone line. The case arose when New York Telephone Company refused to install such devices on its premises at the request of government officials who had obtained warrants for their use in an investigation into illegal gambling operations. The company argued that it was not legally obligated under Title III of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which governs wiretapping and electronic surveillance by authorities, as well as Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 (which allows judges or magistrates to issue search warrants) because they did not specifically mention this kind of assistance from third parties like themselves. However, the court held with majority decision that these laws implicitly include such power due to broad language authorizing "all necessary steps" for execution.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. New York Telephone Co., Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall, argued that the majority's decision to allow pen registers without a warrant was an overreach of judicial power. They contended that Congress had not granted such authority in Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 or any other legislation, nor did they believe it could be inferred from Rule 41(b) which governs search warrants. The dissenters also expressed concern about potential privacy violations arising from this ruling, as it would permit government surveillance without probable cause or oversight by neutral magistrates - conditions typically required for lawful searches under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Opinion written by Justice BRWhite
Decided: Dec 07, 1977
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms