NCJ Number
42449
Date Published
Unknown
Length
0 pages
Annotation
SIX DRAMATIZED SITUATIONS ILLUSTRATE THE FACTORS THAT DETERMINE IF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM INTERCEPTED TELEPHONE OR WIRE COMMUNICATIONS OR FROM RECORDED CONVERSATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE IN COURT.
Abstract
THESE VIGNETTES COVER THE HOME PHONE, THE MOBILE PHONE, USE OF A FEDERAL WIRETAP WARRANT WITHOUT CONSENT OF EITHER PARTY, ONE-PARTY CONSENT, EAVESDROPPING BY A PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND RECORDING OF THE CONVERSATION OF TWO SUSPECTS LEFT ALONE BRIEFLY IN A PATROL CAR. THE VIGNETTES SHOW THAT PROTECTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT APPLIES ONLY WHEN THERE IS A REASONABLE EXPECTAION OF PRIVACY, AND THAT FEDERAL LEGISLATION STRICTLY REGULATES DISCLOSURES FROM ANY INTERCEPTION, E.G., WHEN NO PARTY CONSENTS, A WIRETAP WARRANT CAN BE SECURED ONLY FOR SPECIFIC SERIOUS OFFENSES AND THEN ONLY IF CERTAIN STRINGENT CONDITIONS ARE MET, ETC. THE FILM ALSO POINTS OUT THAT INDIVIDUAL STATES MAY IMPOSE EVEN HARSHER RESTRICTIONS -- CALIFORNIA, FOR EXAMPLE, PROHIBITS WIRETAP WARRANTS ENTIRELY.(AUTHOR ABSTRACT)...TWH