Providing a defense to prosecution for violations of the wiretap law for interceptions made to make a record of threats, harassment or other crimes
Impact
If enacted, S1093 would significantly alter the legal landscape regarding privacy laws in Massachusetts. Allowing individuals to intercept communications to record threats serves as a protective measure, particularly in delicate situations such as family law disputes. The bill grants individuals the right to disclose recordings made under specified circumstances, thus providing them with a proactive approach to safeguard their interests and document pertinent evidence. This change could empower individuals seeking protection from harassment, yet it raises concerns about potential misuse or abuse of interception rights.
Summary
Bill S1093 aims to provide a legal defense for individuals prosecuted for violations of Massachusetts' wiretap law when the interceptions are made to document threats, harassment, or other criminal activities. Specifically, the bill seeks to amend Chapter 272, Section 99 of the General Laws to allow for interceptions in the context of divorce or child custody disputes and under orders issued pursuant to Chapters 209A or 258E. This legislative effort, presented by Senators Patrick M. O'Connor and Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr., responds to growing concerns over the safety and well-being of individuals facing threats in personal disputes.
Contention
While supporters of S1093 advocate for enhanced protections for victims of domestic threats and harassment, there may be opposition rooted in privacy concerns. Critics worry that this bill could create opportunities for invasions of privacy, as the broader ability to record communications might lead to disputes over what constitutes valid consent and the appropriate contexts for such interceptions. The implications of this legislation extend into the realm of personal privacy rights and set a precedent for law enforcement's engagement with and enforcement of wiretap laws within personal and familial contexts.
Similar To
Relative to the length of wiretap warrants
MA H1722
Similar To
Relative to wiretapping in the Commonwealth
MA S2612
Replaced by
Order relative to authorizing the joint committee on the Judiciary to make an investigation and study of certain current Senate documents relative to judicial matters.
Drug trafficking, wiretapping by ALEA, interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, Attorney General authorized to apply for court order for intercept and to apply for intercept orders, disclosure of recorded communications, penalties for violations, Secs. 20-2A-1 to 20-2A-15, inclusive, added
Drug trafficking, wiretapping by ALEA, interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, Attorney General authorized to apply for court order for intercept and to apply for intercept orders, disclosure of recorded communications, penalties for violations, Secs. 20-2A-1 to 20-2A-15, inclusive, added
Order relative to authorizing the joint committee on the Judiciary to make an investigation and study of certain current Senate documents relative to judicial matters.
Requires parties to certain telephone communications to give notice of intention to record communications in order for communications to be lawfully recorded; failure to give notice violates "New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act."
Drug trafficking, wiretapping by ALEA, interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, Attorney General authorized to apply for court order for intercept and to apply for intercept orders, disclosure of recorded communications, penalties for violations, Secs. 20-2A-1 to 20-2A-15, inclusive, added
Drug trafficking, wiretapping by ALEA, interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, Attorney General authorized to apply for court order for intercept and to apply for intercept orders, disclosure of recorded communications, penalties for violations, Secs. 20-2A-1 to 20-2A-15, inclusive, added