Cite 72 Wis. 2d 711, 242 N.W.2d 184 (1976) Summary If an oral communication is lawfully intercepted because of the consent of a party to the conversation, but is otherwise inadmissible into evidence in a criminal prosecution due to a failure to comply with statutory requirements, such deficiency does not require the additional suppression of…
Accessing wife’s email was not an unlawful interception of communications under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Mother could record conversation between children and their father where children were residing with her and recordings took place in her house.
No absolute immunity shielding the attorneys use of the recordings in the litigation.
No husband-wife exception to the federal wiretap laws.
Non-custodial father could record conversation between his minor son and the mother from an extension phone. Status of parent as non-custodial is not determinative.
No spousal exception for recording conversations.
No violation of federal or state law by mother for recording conversations in the marital home between the father and the children.
Father cannot consent to taping phone conversation on behalf of minor child, even though he has sole legal custody.
A GAL may listen to secretly recorded conversations between the father and the children, although any evidence would be inadmissible.
Congress did not intent to included personal family matters within scope of wiretap laws.