Perry v. State12/10/1999
that information would be in violation of this subtitle. [Emphasis added.]
Discussion
" avesdropping has grown more simple and yet infinitely more complex in the modern communication age." People v. Capolongo, 85 N.Y.2d 151, 158, 647 N.E.2d 1286, 1289 (1995). As a result, many states have enacted independent wiretapping statutes governing the admissibility of such evidence in trials. This has led to a division between states concerning standards of admissibility - some states are stricter than others. A difficult problem has developed concerning the interpretation of an individual state's wiretapping statute concerning evidence that would have been illegally obtained and, therefore, inadmissible in the forum state, but was obtained legally out-of-state.
The majority trend among our sister states is "the law that controls the legality of an interception is the law of the place wherein the interception takes place." United States v. Gerena, 667 F. Supp. 911, 913 (D. Conn. 1987) (quoting United States v. Bennett, 538 F. Supp. 1045, 1047 (D.P.R. 1982));United States v. Geller, 560 F. Supp. 1309, 1317 (E.D. Pa. 1983) (discussing Bennett), aff'd sub nom. United States v. DeMaise, 745 F.2d 49 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109, 105 S. Ct. 786, 83 L. Ed. 2d 780 (1985); see Echols v. State, 484 So. 2d 568, 571-72 (Fla. 1985) (holding that wiretap interception made in Indiana in compliance with Indiana law, but not with Florida law, was admissible in Florida court), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 871, 107 S. Ct. 241, 93 L. Ed. 2d 166 (1986); State v. Bridges, 83 Haw. 187, 202, 925 P.2d 357, 372 (1996) (holding that wiretap interception made in California in compliance with California law, but not with Hawaiian law, was admissible in Hawaiian court); State v. Engel, 249 N.J. Super. 336, 369, 592 A.2d 572, 588 (App. Div. 1991) (holding that wiretap interception legally made in New York under New York law, but not legal under New Jersey law, was admissible in New Jersey court); Frick v. State, 634 P.2d 738, 741 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981) (holding that wiretap interception in Virginia, which was in compliance with Virginia law, but not with Oklahoma law, was admissible in Oklahoma court); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 245 Pa. Super. 457, 462, 369 A.2d 493, 494-95 (1976) (holding that wiretap interception made in New Jersey in compliance with New Jersey law, but not with Pennsylvania law, was admissible in Pennsylvania court); State v. Mayes, 20 Wash. App. 184, 193, 579 P.2d 999, 1005 (1978) (holding that wiretap interception in California, which was in compliance with California law, but not with Washington law, was admissible in Washington court); 1 Wayne R. Lafave, Search and Seizure ยง 1.5(c), at 148-50 (3d ed. 1996); Richard Tullis & Linda Ludlow, Admissibility of Evidence Seized in Another Jurisdiction: Choice of Law and the Exclusionary Rule, 10 U.S.F. L. Rev. 67, 90 (1975) ("If the search did not take place in the forum jurisdiction, it is apparent that the search cannot become illegal solely because the forum court makes a hypothetical determination that it would have been illegal if it had occurred in the forum."); see also People v. Blair, 25 Cal. 3d 640, 656, 602 P.2d 738, 748 (1979) (holding that telephone records collected in Pennsylvania in compliance with Pennsylvania law, but not with California law, were admissible in California state court); Capolongo, 85 N.Y.2d at 161, 647 N.E.2d at 1291 (holding that wiretap interception made in Canada in compliance with Canadian law, did not violate New York privacy law); People v. Fidler, 72 Ill. App. 3d 924, 926, 29 Ill. Dec. 51, 391 N.E.2d 210, 211 (1979) (holding that wiretap interception in Illinois by federal agents in compliance with federal
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|