ruling that warrantless electronic monitoring of face-to-face conversations, with the consent of one party, does not constitute a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment but does constitute a search under Article II, Sections 10 and 11, of the Montana Constitution
How later courts described this case
- ruling that warrantless electronic monitoring of face-to-face conversations, with the consent of one party, does not constitute a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment but does constitute a search under Article II, Sections 10 and 11, of the Montana Constitution
- determining that the Montana Constitution provides enhanced protection against electronic monitoring due to the delegates’ expressed fear, as stated in the convention records, of technology’s infringement on individual privacy
- holding concealed electronic monitoring of face-to-face conversations in private settings are constitutional searches
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE WARNER
dissents.
¶122 I emphatically agree with the dissent of Justice Rice. The only real world result of the Court’s decision today will be to increase the use of a perpetrator’s home for all types of criminal transactions.
¶123 For the sake of safety, law enforcement might opt to continue equipping officers and citizen informants with electronic transmitting devices when they undertake the dangerous task of securing evidence against drug dealers, white-slavers and other offenders, who naturally decline to conduct their flagitious business out in the open. It is possible that such recordings could be used in redirect examination. U.S. v. Burns, 432 F.3d 856, 860 (8th Cir. 2005). And, in the event a criminal defendant chooses to testify and contradicts the testimony of a State’s witness to a criminal transaction, a recording of what actually happened might come in handy for impeachment purposes. See e.g. U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 910 , 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3414 (1984); Walder v. U.S., 347 U.S. 62, 65 , 74 S. Ct. 354, 356 (1954); Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 226 , 91 S. Ct. 643, 646 (1971).