SUPREME COURT: COURT ORDER NOT NEEDED FOR POLICE TAPING

The state Supreme Court has ruled that police do not need to obtain a court
order to be able to tape a conversation without a suspect's knowledge.

The unanimous high court decision Tuesday involved a drug suspect who
claimed that his right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated.

Orlando Almada pleaded guilty in 9th District Court in Teton County to
selling cocaine and marijuana, on the condition that he could appeal four
rulings. One was the denial of his motion to suppress wiretap evidence.

Almada asked the high court to provide a state constitutional analysis of
the Wyoming Communication Interception Act, which requires the consent of
at least one person involved in a taped conversation.

Such situations are known as "participant monitoring."

The opinion written by Justice Michael Golden said the court had never
before decided the issue of whether a body wiretap used without a search
warrant violates Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution.

According to the court's review of the case, Almada sold marijuana and
cocaine to two buyers four times in May 1996. The buyers delivered the
drugs to undercover informants for the Wyoming Division of Criminal
Investigation.

State agents obtained a warrant from Teton County's justice court to search
Almada's apartment and also a warrant for Almada's arrest, and arrangements
were made for a large purchase of cocaine from Almada on June 4, 1996.

On that day, Almada invited an undercover agent, two confidential
informants and one of the buyers into his apartment, according to the court
review.

The agent and one of the confidential informants were wearing microcassette
recorders and body transmitters. Almada was arrested after he sold the
cocaine to the state agent.

Officers then executed the search warrant and found additional controlled
substances and drug paraphernalia in Almada's apartment.

Golden wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court has maintained that participant
monitoring does not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that most states have
ruled that people who engage in criminal activity with another person
should have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court also upheld district court rulings that denied Almada's motions
to suppress search evidence, to dismiss the case for violations of the
right to a speedy trial and a motion for a "meaningful" preliminary
hearing.