Court Opinion

ID: 9741052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:48:44.297417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:21.956732
License: Public Domain

D. E. Holbrook, P. J
.(dissenting). This writer is constrained to dissent with the majority as to the first issue only. There is no question on the law applicable to cases arising after the decision of the Supreme Court in People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554; 227 NW2d 511 (1975). This ruling was given prospective application only. The instant case is prior to Beavers, supra.
In the case of People v Patrick, 46 Mich App 678, 682-683; 208 NW2d 604, 606-607 (1973), this writer stated:
"Defendants first assert that the electronic tape of the conversation between defendants and Pat Bradley was an illegal search of the property of the defendants under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They cite the case of Katz v United States, 389 US 347; 88 S Ct 507; 19 L Ed 2d 576 (1967), in support of their position. Generally speaking, it is impermissible for police officers to conduct an electronic surveillance, wiretape, or record a conversation of private persons without an order to do so issued from an *432independent magistrate. 18 USC 2511(1); Katz v United States, supra. The requirement of a judicial order is not necessary where one party to the conversation consents to the interception of the conversation by police authorities, their agents, or the use of electronic equipment. United States v White, 401 US 745, 749; 91 S Ct 1112, 1125; 28 L Ed 2d 453, 457 (1971); 18 USC 2511(2)(c).”
This writer, being convinced that the instant case is governed by the law as stated in Patrick, therefore respectfully dissents, and votes for affirmance.