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