stating that “if detectives and private intermeddlers may, without legal responsibility, peer through 7 keyholes, eavesdrop at the table, listen at the transom and over the telephone, and crawl under the bed, then all constitutional guarantees become [a] meaningless aggregation of words, as disconnected as a broken necklace whose beads have scattered on the floor”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “if detectives and private intermeddlers may, without legal responsibility, peer through 7 keyholes, eavesdrop at the table, listen at the transom and over the telephone, and crawl under the bed, then all constitutional guarantees become [a] meaningless aggregation of words, as disconnected as a broken necklace whose beads have scattered on the floor”
- "The Court said in the Nardone case that once it is shown that there has been an unlawful wire tapping, as was shown here, the accused has to be allowed the opportunity 'to prove that a substantial portion of the case against him was a fruit of the poisonous tree.' That is all the Nardone case established and, in fact, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sent the case back for retrial because Nardone had not been given the opportunity to show how much of the prosecution evidence was tainted."
- eavesdropping on telephone conversation with one party's consent intruded on privacy rights guaranteed by Pa. Const. art. I, §§ 1, 8
- under Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, “[t]he right of privacy is as much property of the individual as the land to which he holds title and the clothing he wears on his back.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen :
I do not construe the Act of July 16, 1957, P. L. 956, §1, 15 P.S. §2443, to be aimed at the use of an ordinary extension telephone. It may well be that eavesdropping of every nature should be proscribed by statute but I am not persuaded that the legislation involved so intended. However, it is clear to me that the recording or wiretapping device used in the instant case was in violation of the statute and that the testimony of the witness Morris was sufficiently predicated upon *54 and tainted by this illegal activity to be inseparable therefrom.
I therefore concur in the grant of a new trial.
Mr. Justice Jones joins in this opinion.