Kester v. Horner

How later courts describe this case

• continuing electronic surveillance is permitted for the purpose of determining “the scope of the conspiracy and the identity of the individuals involved”
• “Following prior Fifth Circuit precedent and the recent First Circuit decision in Drake v. Raymark Industries, Inc., we here explicitly hold that § 5(b) permits only the assertion of a claim for a maritime tort.”
• more traditional techniques need not be exhausted if they are impractical, costly, or inconvenient
• courts have viewed sec. 2517(5)’s requirements flexibly
• suppression not mandated by inadvertent noncompliance