Adams v. State (1980)

In Adams v. State, 43 Md. App. 528, 535-36, 406 A.2d 637 (1970), aff'd, 289 Md. 221, 424 A.2d 344 (1980), Judge Chasanow pointed out the two minor respects in which the Maryland law is more restrictive than its federal counterpart. Under the federal law, an interception will be lawful if either party to a conversation consents to its being overheard and recorded. In Maryland, by contrast, such an interception is lawful only if both parties give consent. See Mustafa v. State, 323 Md. 65, 591 A.2d 481 (1991). The distinction is between one-party consent and two-party consent. The closely related second distinction is that in Maryland one-party consent, as an exception to the general Maryland rule, may be enough for the investigation of certain specially designated crimes. Under Title III, one-party consent will always be sufficient no matter what the crime. In that regard, Adams, 43 Md. App. at 537, observed: Because the federal statute is identical to our own in the critical sections defining "intercept" and "electronic, mechanical, or other device" ... we may turn to the federal courts for guidance.