Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site islenet.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!noscvax!uhpgvax!islenet!bob From: bob@islenet.UUCP (Robert P. Cunningham) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.legal Subject: Re: Copyright of mail (e.g. UNC correspondence) Message-ID: <463@islenet.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Jun-84 04:06:06 EDT Article-I.D.: islenet.463 Posted: Wed Jun 6 04:06:06 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Jun-84 06:53:38 EDT References: <7887@watmath.UUCP> Organization: Islenet Inc., Honolulu Lines: 25 Although not involving copyright, a possibly pertinent decision was rendered yesterday by the state Supreme Court here. The case in point involved 13 persons accused of offering bribes to policemen for protection of massage parlors (which, in cases, covers for prostitution). The major evidence against the defendents consisted of taped conversations between them and supposedly-crooked policemen. The policemen were not crooked, of course, and they were taping the conversations. No warrant had been obtained for the taping. In the original trial, the Circuit judge ruled that the taping violated the suspects' right to privacy under the (state) Constitution. In a 3-2 decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that, in absence of specific laws to the contrary, there was a distinction between taping private conversations unbeknowngst to either party, and the taping of a conversation known to one party. Succinctly: "..a defendent cannot expect that his statements to another person will remain private or not be repeated to others." It's quite possible that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will follow. -- Bob Cunningham ..{dual,ihnp4,uhpgvax,vortex}!islenet!bob Honolulu, Hawaii