DAVID GLENN SEAL v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Adkins, Filed March 28, 2016,
Maryland Wiretap Act – An individual performing an intercept as a party or with prior consent “at the prior direction and under the supervision” of an investigating LEO for an enumerated crime must receive more supervision than merely being handed equipment and shown how it works.

(Concur by McDonald – Because the calls were made from WV to VA, no MD law-enforcement would have been able to provide “supervision”)

While the Maryland Wiretap Act’s principal differentiation from federal law is the “all-party consent” (the term “two-party consent” is a bit misleading) provision, it also differs in other somewhat more subtle respects.

One of these is that Maryland Wiretap Law requires a one-party consent intercept to seek evidence of an enumerated crime be performed either by an investigating LEO OR an individual “acting at the prior direction and under the supervision” of an LEO.

In order to qualify under this exception, an individual must be acting BOTH “at the prior direction” and “under the supervision” of an investigating LEO.

To be “under the supervision” of an LEO requires either simultaneous monitoring (sufficient, but not necessary) or at least “something more than the police instructing the victim on how to mechanically handle the recording equipment, making some unsuccessful calls in the station, and then handing over the equipment to the victim to record on his or her own.”

The Court listed deficiencies in the supervision.

But the officer set no limit, restriction or requirement on the:
Number or frequency of calls;
Time of day or duration of calls;
How or when to report back to police;
Remote monitoring of calls by police;
How long [the individual] could retain the equipment;
Inquiry about other criminal matters; or
Maintaining a log of calls made.”