Court Opinion

ID: 9676337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:22:05.986938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:47.790258
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
(dissenting). The issue is whether the police may deliberately, without a warrant, eavesdrop on a private wireless telephone conversation carried out in one’s home. The majority says “yes.” I disagree.
I conclude that the deliberate interception by the police of a telephone conversation in one’s home is subject to the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution.
The majority concludes that any expectation of privacy in a cordless telephone communication cannot be a reasonable one, because the F.C.C. has ordered that a cordless telephone base unit must bear the legend, “Privacy of communications may not be ensured *109while using this phone. 47 C.F.R., sec. 15.236 (1987). Majority opinion at page 104.
The F.C.C. “warning” merely states the obvious. Modern technology is quickly rendering the concept of privacy of communications of historic interest only. Nearly everything we say today, in our homes, on the streets, in our offices, is capable of being overheard by some form of listening device. Embassies abroad have to go to great lengths, unavailable to private citizens, to assure the confidentiality of all communications held within.
The important question, not answered by the majority, is whether society ought to recognize and respect private wireless telephone conversations conducted in one’s home as private. I conclude it should. I therefore dissent.