"Plaintiffs would be able to conintue using the telephone and email in the execution of their professional responsibilities if the Defendents were not undisputedly and admittedly conducting warrantless wiretaps of conversations." (page 21)
I guess this only has to do with warrentless interference.
I'm not so good with all the legal terminology and I still haven't read the whole thing, but I guess my question is: Did she rule that interference was unconstitutional as long as there is no warrant?