MA: One-party consent to recording a conversation is valid, unless it happens in the home; here, a car

One-party consent to recording a conversation is valid in Massachusetts, unless it happens in the home. Here, officers had a warrant authorizing recording in case it happened in the home, but it was in a car instead. Commonwealth v. Hearns, 467 Mass. 707 (April 8, 2014):

The Commonwealth believed that H-Block and Heath Street were highly organized and disciplined groups engaged in the supply and sale of illegal goods in adjoining neighborhoods in Boston, and that the murder was committed in connection with H-Block’s criminal activities. Consequently, during the course of the investigation, it sought to record conversations of those H-Block members whose involvement in the murder was suspected. A cooperating witness consented to the recording of his conversations with the defendant and other H-Block members, and subsequently recorded a conversation with the defendant in which he admitted to the killing. Although this recorded conversation ultimately took place in an automobile and not in a home, out of an abundance of caution the Commonwealth had obtained a warrant, as provided for in Commonwealth v. Blood, 400 Mass. 61, 77, 507 N.E.2d 1029 (1987) (warrant required, pursuant to art. 14 of Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, for surreptitious recording of oral communication in private home even if it comes within “one-party consent” exception of G.L. c. 272, § 99(B)(4) and (C)(1)) (Blood warrant), before surreptitiously recording the conversation.