1973]                   OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES                       21

This bill, with some modification, enacts as State law, and therefore
as an expression of State policy, the basic provisions of the Federal Wiretap
Law (Title 18, U.S.C. §2510 et seq.), and repeals the existing State laws
relating to wiretapping.

The probable genesis of H.B. 962 was a decision by the Maryland Court
of Special Appeals in State v. Siegel, 13 Md. App. 444 (1971), aff'd. 266
Md. 256, which, in effect, invalidated certain procedures relating to Court
ordered interception of electronic communications theretofore authorized
under State law.

The existing Maryland law relating to wiretaps is found in Article 27,
§§ 125A—125D and Article 35, §§ 92-99 of the Annotated Code. Sections
125A of Article 27 makes it unlawful for any person in the State to use any
device or equipment in such manner as to overhear or record any part
of the conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private con-
versation without the knowledge or consent of that other person. Only upon
a showing to a court of probable cause that a crime may be, or is being
or has been committed, and that the use of such device is necessary to
prevent the commission of the crime or to secure evidence thereof, may
a wiretap lawfully be permitted. Section 92 of Article 35 expresses the
same sentiment as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception
of telephonic and telegraphic communications shall not be violated. The
interception and divulgence of a private communication by any person not a
party thereto is contrary to the public policy of this State, and shall not be
permitted except by court order in unusual circumstances to protect the
people. It is further declared to be the public policy of this State that
detection of the guilty does not justify investigative methods which infringe
upon the liberties of the innocent."

In State v. Siegel, supra, the Court was dealing with the validity of
Court ordered interceptions under Section 94(a) of Article 35 and Sec-
tion 125D of Article 27. The orders did not specify that the authority to
intercept would terminate when the desired communication had been ob-
tained; they did not require the interception to be executed as soon as
practicable; and they did not require that the interception be conducted so
as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to
interception. Each of these provisions is required by § 2518 of Title 18
(U.S.C), which the Court held applicable; and for that reason, the orders
were held invalid.

The underlying theory expressed by the Court is that: (1) in order
for wiretaps to be conducted by State or local law enforcement officers in
Maryland, there must be a State statute authorizing such conduct, which
is provided at present by sections of Article 27 and 35; (2) the State
statutory authority may be more restrictive, but not more liberal than the
federal authority contained in Title 18 of the United States Code; and
(3) to the extent the State statutory authority is broader than the federal,
it is invalid and the federal provisions will control. I do not read the
Siegel case as abrogating Section 125A of Article 27 or Sections 92 of
Article 35, but only those procedures relating to Court ordered intercep-
tions that exceed what is permitted in corresponding sections of the federal
law, and the types of crimes, in excess of those stated in the federal law,
for which wiretaps may be authorized.

H.B. 962 does repeal those two sections designed to preserve the privacy
of Maryland citizens as well as Section 93 of Article 35, which, inter alia,