Commonwealth v. Mitchell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtGants, J.
Under the Massachusetts electronic surveillance statute, G. L. c. 272, § 99 F, the Commonwealth is required to obtain a warrant before it may conduct an “interception,” which is defined as the secret recording or transmitting of the contents of any wire or oral communication without the consent of all *418parties to the communication. G. L. c. 272, § 99 B 4. However, under the “one-party consent exception,” set forth in § 99 B 4, “it shall not constitute an interception for an investigative or law enforcement officer ... to record or transmit a wire or oral communication if the officer is a party…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. CaceresSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Commonwealth v. ScottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
- Commonwealth v. JimenezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
- Commonwealth v. Isaiah I.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
- Commonwealth v. BloodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BurgosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
- Commonwealth v. ThompsonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2015
- Commonwealth v. BurgosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
- Commonwealth v. DuMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2023
- Commonwealth v. FernandesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2023
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.