The following excerpt is from People v. Fiorillo, 311 N.Y.S.2d 574, 63 Misc.2d 480 (N.Y. Cty. Ct. 1970):
The defendants further complain that there are no provisions in the warrant to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to eavesdropping under this title. There is no indication whatever that any such conversations were intercepted or could have been intercepted under the circumstances established by the affidavits upon which these warrants were issued considering the location and use of the telephones described in the warrants. However, even if such were the case and some outside person not involved in the gambling conspiracy and making calls not related to the promotion of illegal gambling were intercepted, these defendants would have no standing to protest. The aggrieved persons would be those whose unrelated telephone calls were intercepted. United States v. Serrano, 2 Cir., 317 F.2d 356.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.