State v. Maddox

²⁹⁸ GILBERT, Chief Judge. The State has appealed from an order of the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County suppressing what the court perceived to be an unlawful electronic interception of a telephone conversation between the appellee Joseph Edward Maddox and another person. The court also suppressed a handgun recovered from one of the parties to the “intercepted” phone call. We do not share the trial court’s view, and for the reasons set forth infra, we reverse the suppression orders.

The facts from which this appeal arose may be briefly stated. Joseph Edward Maddox was suspected of having shot Larry Lee Woodland. After Maddox was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), he allegedly confessed to having shot Woodland. He told the sheriff’s deputies that he last saw the handgun when Mary Barnes put it into her purse.

To assist the authorities in recovering the gun, Maddox telephoned Mrs. Barnes. The deputies listened to and simultaneously recorded, via table monitor, Maddox’s conversation with Mrs. Barnes. Although Mrs. Barnes was not apprised that the conversation was being recorded, Maddox was fully aware of that fact. Because Mrs. Barnes did not know that the deputies recorded her conversation with Maddox, defense counsel moved to suppress the recordation.

The trial court agreed with the defense that the statute required suppression, and this appeal ensued. Md.Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 10-402 provides in pertinent part: (a) Unlawful acts.—Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Wilfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire or oral communication; (2) Wilfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the informa ²⁹⁹ tion was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication in violation of this subtitle; or (3) Wilfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication in violation of this subtitle. (c) Lawful acts.— (3) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire or oral communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act. It is beyond question that the taping of Maddox’s conversation with Mrs. Barnes was an electronic interception of the telephone call.

Courts Art., § 10-401 provides, in pertinent part: “As used in this subtitle, the following terms have the meanings indicated: (1) ‘Wire communication’ means any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of communications; (2) ‘Oral communication’ means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation; ³⁰⁰ (3) ‘Intercept’ means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the