Boston, MA

1092 readers

2 users here now

Welcome to c/boston,

A community for all things related to Boston, Massachusetts. Whether you're a local, a visitor, or just interested in the city, this is the place to discuss, share, and connect with fellow Bostonians.

Greater Boston area discussion is welcome here.

Rules:

Be respectful: Treat others with respect and courtesy. Personal attacks, trolling, and harassment will not be tolerated.

Stay on topic: Keep discussions relevant to Boston and its surrounding areas.

Official City of Boston Website

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

(PDF) Massachusetts Appeals Court rules Boston police officers violated wiretap statute by surreptitiously recording drug deal with suspect, evidence of recording must be suppressed (www.mass.gov)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

1 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I want to say I support legal smackdowns of warrantless wiretapping, but I’m a little unsure of this one.

Citizens observing suspect behavior are encouraged to record videos, and those are key in legal cases. This recording was made on the undercover cop’s own phone, it seems in a public place. It seems a little strange to me that police are more shackled than ordinary citizens when it comes to recordings.
Depending on how deep the cover was (for selling small amounts of drugs, perhaps not) I wonder how hard it is to contact a judge for a warrant. I’m picturing those tense TV dramas where an undercover is suddenly pulled to an unexpected meeting, and decides just in time to start a muted call (obviously, likely more dramatic than what happened here). I even wonder if the presence of his witness account should affect the legality of the recording. It’s just verifying his statement.