State v. Luther
| Decision Date | 10 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-117-C,73-117-C |
| Citation | 351 A.2d 594,116 R.I. 28 |
| Parties | STATE v. John H. LUTHER et al. A. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This appeal is a sequel of sorts to our holding in State v. Maloof, 114 R.I. 380, 333 A.2d 676 (1975). The defendants were charged with conspiring to violate the gambling laws. Much of the evidence presented against them resulted from the use of a tap placed on the telephone which was located in a Warwick home. The evidence indicated that Luther used the Warwick residence to receive from and relay to Fogarty and Ross bets on the so-called lottery policy numbers. Fogarty and Ross were situated in Pawtucket. A Superior Court jury returned guilty verdicts and the defendants have appealed.
The electronic intercept had been authorized by two orders issued in 1969 by the then Presiding Justice of the Superior Court. The second order authorized an extension of the initial intercept for an additional period of time. The defendants filed a motion to supprees the evidence and the motion was denied. We reverse.
In Maloof, which also involved the use of electronically intercepted telephonic communications, we said that the citizens of this state have a double barrelled source of protection which safeguards their privacy from unauthorized and unwarranted intrusions: the fourth amendment of the Federal Constitution and the Declaration of Rights which is specified in the Rhode Island Constitution. We recognized that under the guarantees of our State Constitution, we could establish a higher standard of protection to our citizens than might otherwise be afforded under the fourth amendment. Finally, we exercised our prerogative to adopt a higher standard of protection by insisting that there be strict compliance with the explicit directives detailed in G.L.1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-5.1-5, which specifies the form and content which must be satisfied in order to conduct an electronic search.
Our holding in Maloof was motivated by the realization that 'bugging' and 'tapping' pose a much greater risk to one's right of privacy than a conventional physical search of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. von Bulow
...of Rights which is specified in the Rhode Island Constitution." State v. Sitko, R.I., 460 A.2d 1, 2 (1983) (quoting State v. Luther, 116 R.I. 28, 29, 351 A.2d 594-95 (1976)). This dual safeguard flows directly from the United States Supreme Court's explicit acknowledgement of the "right of ......
-
State v. Pottle
...not contain a provision requiring execution as soon as possible, a minimization requirement, and a termination clause. State v. Luther, 116 R.I. 28, 351 A.2d 594 (1976). In 1972, the highest court in Maryland determined that a wiretap order that lacked these same three provisions was invali......
-
State v. Picerno, C.A. No. P1-02-3047B (R.I. Super 3/10/2004)
...Rights which is specified in the Rhode Island Constitution." State v. Sitko, 460 A.2d 1, 2 (R.I. 1983) (quoting State v. Luther, 116 R.I. 28, 29, 351 A.2d 594, 594-95 (1976)). In addition, statutory requirements mandate procedures for intercepting wire communications that extend beyond the ......
-
State v. Mattatall
...of Rights which is specified in the Rhode Island Constitution.' State v. Sitko, R.I. 460 A.2d 1, 2 (1983) (quoting State v. Luther, 116 R.I. 28, 29, 351 A.2d 594-95 (1976)). This dual safeguard flows directly from the United States Supreme Court's explicit acknowledgement of the 'right of s......