+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 74
Latest: Bosworth 1485
New This Month: 3
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 1078
Total Topics: 193
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 18
(December 12, 2020, 11:44:40 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 3
Total: 3

Author Topic: Intercept mentions  (Read 28 times)

MauraMurrayEvidence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Intercept mentions
« on: December 05, 2019, 07:40:37 am »
From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/transcript-murray-vs-new-hampshire/?message=963

N. One-party intercept memoranda: This is the one-of-a-kind type of item that the Supreme Court recognized cannot be described specifically without irreparably disclosing what it consists of. Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. Detective Landry and SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/transcript-murray-vs-new-hampshire/?message=948

N. One-party intercept memoranda: For the reasons stated in paragraph 3 above, I am strongly of the opinion that this item cannot be released or further identified without severely hindering our investigation, endangering the viability of any future prosecution causing the substantial likelihood of injury or harm to any person that cooperated in any such activity and substantially decreasing the likelihood that justice can be achieved for Maura Murray if it if determined that she has been the victim of criminal conduct. I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

2. As part of my duties as a homicide prosecutor, I have been involved in the investigative phase of homicide cases and suspicious death cases. That includes monitoring interviews, reviewing and drafting legal documents, preparing search and arrest warrants, viewing death scenes and related evidence, working with the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, attending and/or reviewing autopsies, working with the State Police Forensic Lab and other forensic experts, authorizing one party and body wire intercepts, negotiating and attending cooperating witness interviews, subpoenaing records, drafting pleadings, dealing with witnesses and related issues, and participating in grand jury investigations. Some of the cases I have worked on have begun as missing person's cases and subsequently became homicide cases. I have also worked on other missing person's cases which have turned out not to be homicide cases.

From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/transcript-murray-vs-new-hampshire/?message=994 &
https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/transcript-murray-vs-new-hampshire/?message=995

13 A. My name is Todd Landry.
14 Q. And what is your position?
15 A. I'm currently a sergeant with the New
16 Hampshire State Police.

3 CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY MS. SMITH:
4 Q. The next category that we need to talk
5 about is the one -- there was a one-party intercept
6 memorandum.
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. And are you concerned with revealing
9 any specifics about that document?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And that's for the reasons that we've
12 previously discussed about identifying the focus of
13 your investigation?
14 A. Yes.

From: https://mauramurray.createaforum.com/evidence/transcript-murray-vs-new-hampshire/?message=1056

7 on for what I'd call a substantial period of time.
8 That raises our level of concern. So, we do get
9 involved the longer it goes, that's one factor, and
10 then the other factor is what level of assistance is
11 needed. Is there legal work that needs to be done,
12 are there subpoenas, is there potentially Grand Jury
13 work, is there a request for one-party or body wire
14 intercepts? Those types of things will bring us into
15 the case.

Unrelated case on One-Party-Intercepts From: https://www.courts.state.nh.us/superior/orders/windhurst.pdf

The defendant, Eric Windhurst, is charged with one count of first degree murder for allegedly shooting Daniel Paquette to death on or about November 9, 1985. The State alleges that the defendant committed this crime while accompanied by Melanie
Cooper, Paquette’s step-daughter.

Presently before the court is the defendant’s motion to suppress consensually recorded telephone conversations between Cooper and the defendant which were obtained by the New Hampshire State Police on various dates in July 2004. The court heard argument on the motion on June 23, 2006. I conclude that the motion is lacking in merit and must be denied.

The facts pertinent to the motion are undisputed. At some time after Paquette’s death, Cooper moved to Idaho. In July 2004, officers of the New Hampshire State Police (“the police”) traveled to Idaho to interview Cooper regarding the shooting. While in Idaho, the police requested and obtained permission from the New Hampshire Attorney General to intercept and record telephone conversations between Cooper and the defendant. Cooper initiated the telephone calls from Idaho and consented to the interception of the calls. At the time of the telephone calls, the defendant was in New Hampshire. The defendant at no time consented to the interception or recording of his conversations with Cooper. The attorney general described the basis on which she authorized the intercepts in memoranda written within 72 hours of the authorization.

The defendant asserts that the recordings in question constitute “single-party intercepts” which were not authorized under New Hampshire law. Specifically, the defendant argues that, under RSA chapter 570-A (2001 and Supp. 2005), the attorney general’s authority to grant permission for such intercepts is confined to the territorial boundaries of the State of New Hampshire.

Because the intercepts occurred in Idaho, not New Hampshire, the defendant contends that the New Hampshire officers did not have the requisite authorization to conduct them. While recognizing that, unlike New Hampshire, Idaho is a one-party consent state, the defendant further asserts that the fact the police may have complied with Idaho law in intercepting the telephone calls is irrelevant because persons in New Hampshire have a greater expectation of privacy than those in Idaho. Thus, according to the defendant, because the police could not obtain authority from the attorney general to conduct intercepts in Idaho, and because Idaho law is not controlling, the only manner by which the intercepts in this case could have been lawfully conducted is if the police transported Cooper to New Hampshire and made the calls to the defendant from within the state with proper authorization. The State, on the other hand, takes the position that, while it obtained approval for the intercepts pursuant to New Hampshire law out of an abundance of caution, the intercepts are governed by Idaho law, under which the intercepts were entirely valid.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 04:22:04 pm by MauraMurrayEvidence »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


 

+-Recent Topics

The index card with directions to Burlington by TheRealFinn
October 29, 2020, 08:00:57 am

Butch Atwood's Actual Statements by TheRealFinn
May 11, 2020, 02:57:32 am

Bill R bought a Saab in 2002 by TheRealFinn
March 25, 2020, 05:01:28 am

MASTER INDEX: MAURA MURRAY EVIDENCE by TheRealFinn
February 24, 2020, 06:46:45 am

Some of Maura's Handwritten Notes by MauraMurrayEvidence
February 19, 2020, 10:23:59 am

Maura's Gas Tank Measured Full (when studied in 2011) by TheRealFinn
February 09, 2020, 11:01:01 am

When Maura crashed her car, she was listening to The New Radicals - You Get What You Give by TheRealFinn
February 09, 2020, 10:56:27 am

Comprehensive Overview of search efforts in the Maura Murray Case-Part 1 by MauraMurrayEvidence
February 08, 2020, 02:22:33 pm

Transcription of Q&A With Strelzin et al From Missing Maura Murray Episode 27-Part 1 by MauraMurrayEvidence
February 08, 2020, 02:14:09 pm

License Suspension [as] "alerted by MA police"? by MauraMurrayEvidence
February 08, 2020, 01:47:21 pm