Slashdot Mirror
PA Supreme Court Decides if Reading Email==Wiretap
An anonymous reader noted that "Excite is reporting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is taking up a case to decide the question may police look at a suspect's email and instant messages without first obtaining a court order. The defendant, a former police officer, is also claiming his Fourth Amendment privacy rights were also violated. The outcome will only affect Pennsylvania but the issues at hand may eventually reach the US Supreme Court." Umm...
Duh?
From the article:
Proetto claims police violated the state's wiretapping law by looking at the messages without first obtaining a warrant. Proetto also claims his Fourth Amendment privacy rights were violated.
The defence will argue that:
Since PA law requires the consent of both parties for private recordings the transcripts were not lawfully obtained by the girl. If the girl could not legaly record the conversations then the police would need a court order to do so. So sayeth the 4th Ammendment. The defence can also argue that the girl was acting as an "agent" of the police when collecting the evidence.
The prosecution may argue that the Police would not have needed a court order to intercept the email, making the "two-party" issue irrelevant.
It seems the question at hand is if the PA "two-party" law applies to email, if it does then there is indeed a search and seizure issue and the evidence possibly gets thrown out. If the PA court finds that it doesn't apply, or that it does apply but still admits the evidence you will see this case in the Supreme Court.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Hi!
The AP wire article that Excite quotes was written by a reporter in Philadelphia, presumably after reading this story which ran in the Allentown Morning Call five days earlier. The AP writer makes a couple of mistakes, and misses a significant point--a point that is made well in the Morning Call piece.