Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Mitchell

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 18, 2014PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. United States v. CaceresSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Commonwealth v. ScottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
  3. Commonwealth v. JimenezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
  4. Commonwealth v. Isaiah I.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
  5. Commonwealth v. BloodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BurgosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
  2. Commonwealth v. ThompsonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2015
  3. Commonwealth v. BurgosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
  4. Commonwealth v. DuMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2023
  5. Commonwealth v. FernandesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2023

2 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