Opinion ID: 2188701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kehling's Recorded Telephone Conversation with His Wife

Text: Later in the morning of the fire, Kehling telephoned his mother-in-law's house and had a heated conversation with his wife, in the course of which he made incriminating remarks. The mother-in-law made a tape recording of the conversation and that recording was played to the jury at his trial. By state law, 15 M.R.S.A. § 713, the contents of an intercepted wire communication are not admissible in court. A wire communication, however, is not intercepted for purposes of the statute, and so is not protected, if either the sender or the receiver has given prior authority for it to be recorded. Id. § 709(4)(C). [2] The admissibility of Kehling's recorded telephone conversation with his wife turns on whether the mother-in-law in making the recording had the prior authority of either or both Kehling and his wife. In construing the parallel provision of federal law prohibiting the interception of a wire communication except where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511(2)(c), (d) (Supp.1991), the United States courts of appeals have held that the prior consent may be implied. Those courts define implied consent as `consent in fact' which is inferred `from surrounding circumstances indicating that the party knowingly agreed to surveillance.' Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 116-17 (1st Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Amen, 831 F.2d 373, 378 (2d Cir.1987)). In the case at bar, the Superior Court found that both Kehling and his wife knew that the wife's mother had the capacity to record phone calls and both were told by her that their conversation was going to be recorded if they continued to talk. The court held that in the absence of any objection on the part of either, the consent of both to the recording can be inferred. The court's determination that prior consent was to be inferred from the conduct of both parties to the telephone conversation was not erroneous.