Agnew v. State
197 A.3d 27
Md.2018Background
- In Nov. 2015 police executed a warrant at Rodney Agnew’s apartment and seized drugs, a loaded revolver, scales, cash, and a silver iPhone. Forensics extracted a voice‑memo audio recording of a phone conversation between Agnew and an unidentified speaker.
- Agnew was indicted on multiple drug and firearm charges; at trial the State played the iPhone voice memo.
- Defense objected that the recording violated the Maryland Wiretap Act because the other party did not consent (Maryland requires all‑party consent). The trial court overruled and admitted the recording; the jury convicted Agnew on several counts.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, relying on precedent that a recording made by a party to the conversation may be admissible against that consenting party even if the other party did not consent.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether the Wiretap Act barred admission of a recording made by Agnew without the other party’s consent. The Court affirmed the intermediate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a recorded communication made by a party to the conversation is an “intercepted” communication inadmissible under the Maryland Wiretap Act when the other party did not consent | Agnew: two‑party consent required; because the unidentified speaker did not consent, the recording was unlawfully intercepted and must be suppressed | State: Agnew himself recorded the communication; he cannot claim protection as an “aggrieved person”; the recording is admissible against the consenting party | The Court held the Wiretap Act does not bar admission against the consenting/intercepting party; Agnew cannot claim aggrieved‑person protection for a recording he made himself |
Key Cases Cited
- Maddox v. State, 69 Md. App. 296 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) (recording by one party admissible against that consenting party even if other party unaware)
- Perry v. State, 357 Md. 37 (Md. 1999) (nonconsenting party may suppress tape made by co‑conspirator; did not decide whether interceptor can claim protection)
- Benford v. Am. Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 554 F. Supp. 145 (D. Md.) (interpreting Maryland Wiretap Act to protect reasonable expectation of privacy in nonconsensual recordings)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (two‑pronged reasonable‑expectation‑of‑privacy test)