MD: Third person added to a jail call after the warning of recording didn’t violate state wiretap law

Adding a third person to a jail call after the initial recording was played saying that calls were recorded was not a wilful interception of that person’s call under the state wiretap act. The only other state to deal with that question is Massachusetts which twice held that the state wiretap law wasn’t implicated by third party calls. Boston v. State, 2017 Md. App. LEXIS 1268 (Dec. 20, 2017).

The search of defendant’s cell phone led to 404(b) evidence of another drug transaction an hour before the one he was arrested for. It was not unduly prejudicial. Even so, it was harmless at best. State v. Brown, 2017 La. App. LEXIS 2378 (La.App. 5 Cir. Dec. 20, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.