parnass@ihuxf.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) (04/04/84)
Lauren Weinstein posted this interesting item on the Arpanet:
----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 24 Mar 1984 20:03-PST
Subject: Cordless Telephone Conversations and the Law
From: lauren@Rand-Unix (Lauren_Weinstein)
a239 1443 24 Mar 84 AM-Phone Evidence,390 State Court Says Cordless
Phone Conversations Not Private By BILL VOGRIN Associated Press Writer
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - Police can lawfully monitor and record
cordless telephone conversations heard over an ordinary FM radio and
use the recordings as evidence in court, the Kansas Supreme Court
ruled Saturday.
In overturning a Reno County District Court judge, the high court
decided that cordless telephone conversations are the equivalent of
oral communications and not subject to wiretap laws.
Attorney General Robert Stephan hailed the ruling as ''a great
decision for victims and for law enforcement.''
''The Supreme Court has obviously plowed new ground and, in my
opinion, they plowed the furrows straight and true,'' Stephan added.
The state Supreme Court sent the case - involving charges of
possession of cocaine and conspiracy to sell marijuana against Timothy
and Rosemarie Howard of Hutchinson - back to court for a new trial.
Justice David Prager, in writing the decision for the court, said,
''Owners of a cordless telephone located in a private residence who
had been fully advised by the owner's manual as to the nature of the
equipment, which involves the transmission and reception of FM radio
waves, had no reasonable expectation of privacy.''
In other words, the Howards had no valid expectation of privacy
when they decided to use a cordless telephone which was advertised as
having a range of 50 feet and is basically a radio unit.
Prosecutors alleged the Howards used their cordless telephone for
drug dealing.
The conversations, which Judge William F. Lyle ruled were
inadmissible as evidence, were recorded in 1982 after a neighbor of
the Howards picked them up while he was randomly tuning a standard
AM-FM radio.
The neighbor told police about the conversations and the Kansas
Bureau of Investigation provided a tape recorder and tapes and asked
the neighbor to record more communications.
A similar case is pending in Rhode Island, but is not expected to
be resolved until later this year.
During oral arguments before the court last month, Herbert R. Hess
Jr., attorney for the Howards, urged the court not to set an
''illogical precedent'' by allowing the use of the recorded
conversations.
He contended that what occurs in the privacy of the home is
protected constitutionally and statutorily and said a 1968 federal law
governing wiretaps applies in this case.
ap-ny-03-24 1742EDT
--
==========================================================================
Bob Parnass, AT&T Bell Laboratories - ihnp4!ihuxf!parnass - (312)979-5760