Did The ACORN Journalists Break The Law?

This story that surfaced on breitbart.com reports that the Baltimore city state's attorney Patricia C. Jessamy is considering prosecuting those responsible for taping the ACORN employees on charges that they violated Maryland's wiretap laws. Maryland law prohibits the interception of communications without the consent of all persons to the communication, and is punishable by five years in prison. I had just one question, does the Maryland state law concerning the law of intercepting communications apply to the two journalists?

The answer can be found to this question can be found not by looking forward, but into the past. Linda Tripp was charged by the state of Maryland for violating the state's wiretapping laws, and thus the evidence she submitted in the Monica Lewinsky trial was inadmissible. Notice the pattern here? The Maryland state wiretapping law states the following;

Unlawful acts. -- Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or

(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-402(a)(1)-(a)(3).

"Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-401(3)

"Electronic, mechanical, or other device" means any device or electronic communication other than: (i) Any telephone...equipment...or any component thereof... furnished by the subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of the service and used in the ordinary course of its business. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-401(4)(i).

It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution of laws of the United States or of this State. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-402(c)(3).

For the lot who don't understand leaglease, what this all means concerning the ACORN case is that the two journalists didn't wiretap, or illegally intercept any communications as defined by Maryland state law because the device used to obtain the evidence is exempt from the wiretapping laws, the obtaining party was a participant in the communication, and the communication revealed a conspiracy to commit multiple, heinous crimes. Did I mention the 10th Circuit Cort of Appeals ruling in 1974 that states the following?

"The government has adopted the position of the trial court below that the intercepting device was the recorder and not an extension telephone. While such a view avoids the problem presented, we are simply not persuaded by this contention. We agree with appellant that the recording of a conversation is immaterial when the overhearing is itself legal. It is the means whereby the contents of the conversation are acquired that is crucial. See State v. Vizzini, 115 N.J. Super. 97, 278 A.2d 235. A recording device placed next to, or connected with, a telephone receiver cannot itself be the "acquiring" mechanism. It is the receiver which serves this function--the recorder is a mere accessory designed to preserve the contents of the communication. This interpretation comports squarely with the clear distinction drawn between "intercepting" and "recording" under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8) (a), which deals with judicially authorized interceptions: The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by any means authorized by this chapter shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device."

Case and point, the legal president states that these two journalists did not in any shape or form flout the law prohibiting wiretaps. The legal president has been established the two journalists should walk away from this.