State v. Gil
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Waukesha county drug agents set up an undercover operation and were listening in the next room when Rolando A. Gil tried to rob and kill their informant. Even though the drug agents had their informant's consent to make a recording of the transaction, the electronic surveillance law in effect at that time stated that one-party consent recordings could only be used to prove drug charges, not the attempted robbery and homicide that the agents inadvertently captured on their tapes. We conclude that a literal interpretation of the surveillance law would frustrate the legislature's intent. We…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Gilbert v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. Earnest Jackson, Jr., and James Arthur Porter, IIICourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- United States v. Randolph WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. RileyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2005
- State v. OhlingerCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2009
- State v. GilCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1997