Opinion ID: 849329
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the eavesdropping statutes

Text: Defendant was charged under M.C.L. § 750.539c; MSA 28.807(3), which provides: Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs, or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. The statutes define eavesdrop as to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. MCL 750.539a(2); MSA 28.807(1)(2). In the present case, the facts as alleged indicate that Joanne Stone's cordless telephone conversations were wilfully recorded by Ronald Pavlik, without her consent, at defendant's prompting. Because this case involves such alleged wilful record[ing], the statutory prohibition against wilful overhear[ing] is not before us. Instead, the question before us is whether defendant is correct that the conversations eavesdropped on could not be private conversations because they were held on a cordless telephone.