distinguishing between the expectation of privacy and the expectation of non-interception of oral communications, holding that motorists are still entitled to the latter during traffic stops, and suggesting that police officers are similarly entitled
How later courts described this case
- distinguishing between the expectation of privacy and the expectation of non-interception of oral communications, holding that motorists are still entitled to the latter during traffic stops, and suggesting that police officers are similarly entitled
- explaining that "[g]enerally, where there is an expectation of privacy[,] there is also an expectation of noninterception. Such is not always the case"
- while an individual would normally have an expectation that her conversations with her physician would not be recorded, she would lose the - 11 - J-S08042-23 expectation of non-interception if she knew “from past experience that the doctor often carries a small tape recorder in a pocket to record patient interviews”
- stopped motorist, while possessing no expectation of privacy in communications to police officer, possessed justifiable expectation under the circumstances that his words would not be electronically seized and carried away by officer
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*120 TAMILIA, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I do not believe there can be an expectation of privacy in an investigative stop by a police officer in the legitimate exercise of his duty as a police officer. The Wiretap Act was meant to preclude intercepts of communication without having established probable cause and the right to search, which is clearly an invasion of privacy prohibited by the Act, if not the Constitution.