 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Perry v. State12/10/1999
conducted in California. Neither Perry's nor Horn's Maryland expectations of privacy were impaired under the facts of this case as the right should be limited to the laws of the location where the interception took place. Perry called Horn in California. He knew his conversation was being received in California. He knew or should have known that if his conversation was going to be intercepted or taped, it could be done in California. Thus, he knew, or should have known, that his expectation as to his right to privacy might be controlled by the laws of the jurisdiction to which he placed his calls - California. See Blair, 25 Cal. 3d at 656, 602 P.2d at 748; Engel, 249 N.J. Super. at 369, 592 A.2d at 588. In the instant case, the evidence at issue was obtained in California, in compliance with California law. Therefore, admitting evidence in this case would not offend the individual privacy rationale of Maryland's oral communication interception exclusionary rule.
Deterrence of Illegal Police Conduct
"The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter law enforcement officers from violating the constitutional rights of citizens by removing the incentive for disregarding such rights." Fidler, 72 Ill. App. 3d at 926, 391 N.E.2d at 211; see Mustafa, 323 Md. at 73, 591 A.2d at 485; see also Blair, 25 Cal. 3d at 655, 602 P.2d at 748; Engel, 249 N.J. Super. at 368, 592 A.2d at 587; Capolongo, 85 N.Y.2d at 164, 647 N.E.2d at 1293 (" ne State's laws have no deterrent effect on conduct of governmental agents of another jurisdiction.").
As the Supreme Court of Hawaii has summarized:
"Deterrence" refers to our expectation that after evidence is suppressed based on particular police conduct in one case, in the future, police officers will refrain from that type of conduct and will instead act in a manner that would not lead to suppression of evidence. . . .
Most authorities recognize that suppression of evidence in the forum state will have little, if any, deterrent effect on agents of the situs state conducting investigations within the situs state. . . .
The lack of any deterrent effect is particularly apparent when the manner in which the evidence was obtained did not violate situs law but would have violated forum law had the evidence been obtained in the forum state. Bridges, 83 Haw. at 199, 925 P.2d at 369.
There are numerous jurisdictions that have followed an interpretation of admissibility of out-of-state wiretap evidence in the fashion I propose. Our neighboring state of Pennsylvania was first confronted with this issue in Bennett, 245 Pa. Super. 457, 369 A.2d 493. In that case, the Superior Court of New Jersey authorized a wiretap on a telephone located in the state of New Jersey as part as a drug investigation. The surveillance of this telephone was conducted entirely in New Jersey; however, the incoming calls, which discussed illegal drug transactions, were received from Pennsylvania. Based on this information, Pennsylvania police secured a search warrant for the location where the incoming calls were made.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that t is, of course, obvious that the courts of this Commonwealth have absolutely no power to control the activities of a sister state or to punish conduct occurring within that sister state. The legislature of New Jersey has determined that wiretapping, in appropriate circumstances and for proper cause shown, will be permitted within its borders. Thus, the information involved in the appeal before us was obtained by the New Jersey Police under a legal authorization. A Conclusion that denies the exchange of information between law enforcement agencies of our Commonwealth an
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
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|