Roach v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• finding segmentation of a highway construction project improper where the middle section of highway was merely a portion of the project without independent utility
• section 4(f) applicable even though city officials had determined that city-owned parkland was of “secondary” importance to the construction of a freeway
• section 4(f) applicable notwithstanding city officials’ finding that city-owned parkland was of “secondary” importance to the construction of a freeway
• imposition of fees on defendant in 'quasi-application' of common fund doctrine
• Title III does not authorize general searches and comports with the requirements of Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 87 S.Ct. 1873, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1967); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967