Today the SJC clarified how the state’s wiretap statute applies to police videos (a subject I posted about just last week: Police Cameras and the Audio/Video Warning inĀ Massachusetts).
In today’s ruling, the SJC wrote:
In this appeal, we are asked to consider the scope of the suppression remedy provided by the wiretap act, G. L. c. 272, Ā§ 99 P, when police violate that statute by secretly making an audio-visual recording of an oral communication. Acting without a warrant, an undercover officer made a series of audio-visual recordings using his cellular telephone while purchasing drugs from the defendant, capturing audio recordings of their discussions and also showing the defendant in the video footage. A judge allowed in part the defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress, excluding the audio component of the recordings but permitting the Commonwealth to introduce in evidence the video footage if shown silently. We conclude that, where the police secretly make such a warrantless audio-visual recording of a defendant’s oral communication in violation of the wiretap act, the video footage must be suppressed together with the audio component.
The full text of the opinion is attached below.