Legal Opinion

110OAG40

Maryland Attorney General Reports

Decided July 22, 2025No. 110OAG040Published

1Opinion of the Court

40 [110 Op. Att’y CRIMINAL LAW WIRETAP AND ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE – POLICE OFFICERS – EVIDENCE – WHEN BODY-WORN CAMERA RECORDINGS VIOLATE THE MARLAND WIRETAP ACT – WHETHER OFFICER CAN STILL TESTIFY AS TO INDEPENDENT OBSERVATIONS July 18, 2025 Colonel Roland L. Butler, Jr. Superintendent, Maryland State Police You have asked a question involving police officers’ use of body-worn cameras and the exclusionary provision of Maryland’s wiretap statute, which generally requires the suppression of evidence derived from a recording that is illegal under the wiretap statute. Specifically, you ask: If…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Segura v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. United States v. CrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Hudson v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 2006

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API