United States v. Spy Factory, Inc.
United States criminal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about United States v. Spy Factory, Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
United States v. Spy Factory, Inc.[Note 2] was a criminal case dealing with the largest chain of surveillance equipment shops in the United States, the San Antonio, Texas-based Spy Factory.[3] The store and its officers Ronald Kimball, Marlin Richardson and Tracy Edward Ford were indicted on a total of 70 counts related to smuggling of and illegal trade in equipment used for wiretapping and surveillance.[4][5] Despite motions to dismiss the case because of the alleged vagueness of 18 U.S.C. § 2512 and other issues,[1][2] the company and all three officers pleaded guilty and were convicted.[4]
Quick Facts United States v. Spy Factory, Inc., Court ...
United States v. Spy Factory, Inc. | |
---|---|
Court | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York |
Full case name | United States of America v. The Spy Factory, Inc. d/b/a "Spy Factory", Ronald Kimball, Marlin Richardson, a/k/a "Brud", and Tracy Edward Ford |
Decided | July 31, 1997, August 1, 1997, August 1, 1997 & August 29, 1997 (judgments) January 7, 1997 as amended February 6, 1997 (regarding motion to dismiss for vagueness and to change venue) March 11, 1997 (regarding motion to reconsider vagueness, to sever defendants, etc.) |
Citation(s) | 951 F.Supp. 450 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) 960 F.Supp. 684 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) |
Holding | |
18 U.S.C. § 2512, which prohibits the knowing manufacture, assembly, possession, sale, transmission (by mail or interstate commerce) or advertisement of devices "primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications", is not unconstitutionally vague.[1][2][Note 1] | |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Sonia Sotomayor |
Close