Court Opinion

ID: 9732864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:40:41.993557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:35.809614
License: Public Domain

Hallows, C. J.
Arnold, the secretary and executive director of the Beloit Housing Authority, had conversations on August 28, 29, and 30, 1970, with Robert Lock-hart who was a Beloit construction contractor and who had been the accepted bidder for 75 low-cost-housing units to be constructed in Beloit. Three conversations occurred in Lockhart’s office and a fourth conversation was held by telephone with Lockhart at his home. Lieutenant Richard Toler of the Rock county sheriff’s department had microphones concealed under Lockhart’s desk and wired to a recording mechanism which Toler surreptitiously monitored and operated to preserve the oral conversations. The telephone conversation was intercepted and recorded by Toler. Lockhart gave his written *437consent for these electronic interceptions, but Arnold had no knowledge of them and did not consent thereto.
At the outset the state raises the question of whether the writ of prohibition is a proper remedy conceding this court has expanded the traditional role of the writ of prohibition of keeping inferior courts from acting beyond their jurisdiction when no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise existed. See State ex rel. Reynolds v. County Court (1960), 11 Wis. 2d 560, 105 N. W. 2d 876; State ex rel. Jefferson v. Roraff (1969), 44 Wis. 2d 250, 170 N. W. 2d 691. Nonjurisdictional error is now recognized as a proper ground for the issuance of the writ when the appeal comes too late for effective redress or is inadequate, when there is a need for such intervention to avoid great hardship or the complete denial of the rights of a litigant, or when there is presented a question of great and immediate public concern. Drugsvold v. Small Claims Court (1961), 13 Wis. 2d 228, 108 N. W. 2d 648; State ex rel. Gaynon v. Krueger (1966), 31 Wis. 2d 609, 143 N. W. 2d 437; see also: State ex rel. Sucher v. County Court (1962), 16 Wis. 2d 565, 115 N. W. 2d 611; State ex rel. Schulter v. Roraff (1968), 39 Wis. 2d 342, 159 N. W. 2d 25.
The question of the propriety of the use of the writ was decided when this court took original jurisdiction on the ground the question involved the constitutionality of a new statute relating to the state’s regulation of electronic surveillance and was of sufficient compelling interest to the public to warrant this court’s immediate consideration. Although this case comes to us in the context of the admissibility of evidence, the statewide importance of an immediate determination of the underlying question makes State ex rel. Cortez v. Board of Fire & Police Comm. (1970), 49 Wis. 2d 130, 141, 181 N. W. 2d 378, and State ex rel. Cullen v. Ceci (1970), 45 Wis. 2d 432, 173 N. W. 2d 175, inapplicable.
*438It is contended that the admission into evidence of recorded conversations obtained by electronic surveillance with the consent of only one party violates the fourth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution. Arnold argues the use of electronic devices to intercept his conversation is a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment, Berger v. New York (1967), 388 U. S. 41, 51, 87 Sup. Ct. 1873, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1040, and being a search he is entitled to the constitutional protections applicable to search warrants. See Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U. S. 347, 354, 88 Sup. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576. Arnold relied in his brief on United States v. White (7th Cir. 1969), 405 Fed. 2d 838. But prior to oral argument on this appeal, the Seventh Circuit’s decision, which had been appealed to the United States Supreme Court, was reversed in United States v. White (1971), 401 U. S. 745, 91 Sup. Ct. 1122, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453.
In White, four justices held that electronic eavesdropping was permissible under the fourth amendment on the ground no constitutional right was involved because a defendant has no “justifiable and constitutionally protected expectation that a person with whom he is conversing will not then or later reveal the conversation to the police.” 401 U. S. 745, 749, 91 Sup. Ct. 1122, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453. And, since a party to the conversation may disclose it, it may be intercepted by electronic eavesdropping. Although prior to this decision it was thought that Katz v. United States, supra, decided that electronic eavesdropping was not permissible under the fourth amendment, these four members of the supreme court stated they saw no such indication in Katz as applied to one party’s consensual interceptions or to disturb the result reached in the On Lee Case.1 A fifth member of *439the court concurred in the judgment for the reasons set forth in his dissent in Katz. Four members of the supreme court dissented on various grounds. While this case is not satisfactory because of the diversity in its opinions, the disagreement on what the court’s prior decisions meant, and plurality holding, nevertheless, it controls, for the time being at least, the issue of constitutionality raised in this case.
However, we think Arnold’s conversations were privileged in character by statute and their admission in evidence by means of tape recordings would be in violation of the Wisconsin Electronics Surveillance Control Law, sec. 968.27 through sec. 968.33, Stats. This law, which was created by ch. 427, Laws of 1969, replaced Wisconsin’s Wiretapping Law, sec. 885.36, prohibiting the admission into evidence of tape-recorded interceptions of telephonic conversations. The Electronics Surveillance Control Law expressly prohibits electronic interceptions of both wire and oral communications with some exceptions. In defining “oral communication,” sec. 968.27 (2), states that term means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. The privileged character of wire and oral communications is also recognized in sec. 968.29 (4).
While such expectation of privacy may not have a constitutional basis under White, that is immaterial since this recognition of confidentiality is important in the process of discovering the legislative intent in an area of eavesdropping which was condemned by the common law. In considering a statute, the court must seek the legislative intent as disclosed from the language of the *440statute in relation to its scope, history, context, subject matter, and object intended to be remedied or accomplished. Scanlon v. Menasha (1962), 16 Wis. 2d 437, 114 N. W. 2d 791.
The American people are rightly jealous of their freedom of privacy and from “bugging” by the police. While the demands of our complex society require improved methods of crime detection, they do not require that a citizen’s right of privacy must be indiscriminately invaded by electronic surveillance or may be invaded with the consent of only one party to a wire or oral conversation having a privileged character.
The basic authorization for an electronic eavesdropping is restricted in sec. 968.28, Stats., which requires a law enforcement officer to apply to a circuit court for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire or oral communication. Such authorization is permitted only when the intervention may provide evidence or if a prior restricted authorization has produced evidence of the commission of certain offenses. These crimes are restricted to murder, kidnapping, commercial bribery, extortion, and dealing with narcotics or dangerous drugs or conspiracy involving such offenses.
The use and disclosure of authorized intercepted wire and oral communications is dealt with in sec. 928.29, Stats. In subs. (1) and (2), law enforcement use of such material is restricted to use in the exercise of the proper performance of professional duties in the investigative process; and by sub. (3), disclosure is only permitted by a person who has received such information by authorized means and which was intercepted in accordance with the state act. The results of such interceptions may be disclosed only while giving testimony under oath or affirmance in a court proceeding or before a magistrate or a grand jury. No other privileged wire or oral communication, although intercepted in *441accordance with or in violation of state law or federal law relating to electronic surveillance, loses its privileged character.
There is an exception to this rule of privileged communications in sub. (5) which provides that when an authorized-court interception discloses material relating to an offense other than that specified in the order authorizing the interception, such information may be used in the proper performance of official duties by a law-enforcement officer. But, if the results of such interception are to be used as evidence in court, an application must be made within forty-eight hours of the interception to the judge who acted upon the original application. Such judge may authorize the use of such interception as evidence if he finds the interception was otherwise in accordance with the state and federal electronic surveillance laws, sec. 968.29, Stats.
The act provides in sec. 968.30, Stats., a detailed procedure for the application to a court for authority for an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire and oral communications. Included in the requirements is a showing of probable cause and the details of the particular offense alleged about to be committed, the description of the nature and location of the facilities, a description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted, the identity of the persons and a full and complete statement of whether or not other investigatory procedures have been tried and failed and other details. The interceptions are limited in time and the court may require the applicant to furnish testimony or documentary evidence under oath in support of the application.
In sec. 968.31, Stats., the act deals with the prohibited interceptions and disclosures of wire and oral communications. Certain penalties are prescribed for intentional interception and disclosure of such intercepted communications. Exceptions to these penalties are made in sec. 968.31 (2) (a), which allows limited interceptions *442by an operator of a switchboard and employees of telephone utilities while they are engaged in the activity of protecting the rights of their employer. Exception is also made in sub. (b) for a person acting under color of title to intercept oral communications where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. It is this section (968.31 (2)(b)), which the state claims authorizes both the interceptions in this case and the use in evidence of the results of such interception. This section does not “authorize” interceptions when one of the parties to the conversation has given prior consent but merely states such interception is “not unlawful.”
We think the admissibility into evidence of the contents of eavesdropping interceptions is governed solely by sec. 968.29(3), Stats., and only communications “intercepted in accordance with” the state law may be disclosed by being admitted in evidence. An interception by a person under color of law who intercepts with the consent of one party but without the approval of a circuit court is not “intercepted in accordance with” as required in sec. 968.29 (3). Nor is such interception “any means authorized by ss. 968.28 to 968.33 . . .” While making such interception not unlawful, sec. 968.31 (2) (b), does not “authorize” it as a procedure which is done by sec. 968.30 requiring an application for electronic surveillance to the circuit court.
Interception is one thing; disclosure as evidence in court is another. In declaring interceptions with consent of one party “not unlawful” the act recognizes the need of this investigative tool to detect crime, but in denying its use as evidence the statute recognizes in the balance the right of privacy of free people. Consequently, such activities by the police may well be excepted from the penalties of sec. 968.31 but it does not follow from *443this exception that the results of such interceptions stand on an equal footing with those authorized by the court under sec. 968.30, and are therefore admissible in evidence. If electronic surveillance is to produce evidence in court on the basis of consent of one party to the conversation, then there is no privileged communication and it was entirely useless to include in the act the careful delineated provisions under which admissible evidence might be obtained by electronic surveillance with court approval. All the safeguards of sec. 968.30 would be for naught and be supplanted by the consent of one party to a privileged communication. Likewise, sec. 968.29 (4), preserving the privileged character of a communication would be meaningless.
The Wisconsin Electronics Surveillance Control Law was patterned after Title III of the federal Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. 18 USCA 2510, et seq. The United States Supreme Court has not interpreted these sections of the federal act although in United States v. White, supra, Mr. Justice Harlan in his dissent in commenting on another issue stated by way of dicta the federal act exempts consensual and participant monitoring by law enforcement agents from the general prohibitions against surveillance without judicial authorization and makes the fruits admissible in court. We do not think the language of the Wisconsin statute means that or can be reasonably construed to reach such a result. While the United States law was based in the context of the holdings in On Lee and Lopez,2- it was also enacted in the context of Berger v. New York and Katz v. United States, supra, which require the warrant procedure as a basis for the admissibility into evidence of the fruits of electronic eavesdropping. *444The Standards Relating to Electronic Surveillance of the American Bar Association approved March, 1971, provides in Standard 4.1 that “The surreptitious overhearing or recording of a wire or oral communication with the consent of, or by, one of the parties to the communication should be permitted, unless . . .” This standard was a change after the passage of the federal act from the original standard which required the consent of all parties. Standard 5.16 closely parallels the federal law and sec. 968.29, Stats., allowing disclosure by testimony in court only if the contents of the interceptions were “obtained by means authorized by these standards.” Under this standard, the question still is, what means are authorized ?
While the electronic interceptions in this case were “not unlawful” because of the consent of Lockhart, we hold that his consent does not destroy the privileged character of communications and the means were not “authorized” or “in accordance with” the Wisconsin Electronics Surveillance Control Law. Consequently, the results of the interceptions are not admissible in evidence in chief as qualifying under sec. 968.29 (8), Stats.
By the Court. — The temporary injunction restraining the county court of Rock county from proceeding with the case entitled “State of Wisconsin v. George Arnold,” is hereby terminated and the writ of prohibition is made absolute.

 On Lee v. United States (1952), 343 U. S. 747, 72 Sup. Ct. 967, 96 L. Ed. 1270, held the surveillance in that case did not violate the constitution because no trespass had occurred, and noted that eavesdropping of a conversation with the connivance of one *439of the parties raised no fourth amendment problem. The pluiAity in White viewed these two independent grounds and concluded that although Katz had swept away the trespass theory of fourth-amendment protection, it did not affect the consensual eavesdropping on which it ruled On Lee was also based.

 On Lee v. United States, supra, footnote 1. Lopez v. United States (1963), 373 U. S. 427, 83 Sup. Ct. 1381, 10 L. Ed. 2d 462; see So. Rep. No. 1097 at 93.94 (90th Cong., 2d Sess., 1966).