1

THE CHAIRMAN: In wiretapping, do you think

2

this should bo a restraint against the State in the use

3

of wiretapping as an investigative procedure?

4

PROFESSOR ROSEN: The issue, as discussed by

6

the ACLU, was not specifically gone into, but I suspect

6

what the ACLU in discussing wiretapping is concerned

7

with is, well, if you take Briswold vs Connecticut as a

8

general case as to the problem of the right to privacy

9

as against incursions by the State, wiretapping or

10

electronic surveillance. by the State would be the kind

11

of thing that night be involved in a provision that takes

12

account of the right to privacy.

13

THE CHAIRMAN: Hell, on the other hand, at

14

the present time Maryland has a standard, a statute which

15

requires consent of both parties, particularly on tele-

16

phonic interception or a search and seizure warrant,

17

which is much stricter than the Federal s'tandard, and is

18

it the ACLU' s position wiretapping should be elevated to

19

a constitutional right in Maryland rather than a statutor

20

PROFESSOR ROSEN: I believe that is ACLU's

21

position nationally and I think it would be their