Pollock Case

Words: 1929
Pages: 8

Lily Pines non-consensual recording of her husband George Pine and her step son Hunter Pine’s telephone conversations by placement of a recording device on the telephone line in the martial residence is a violation of the plain language of Title III. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511 (West). Defendant is not subject to any of the enumerated exceptions contained in Title III. Since Defendant intentionally intercepted the wire communications of the Plaintiff, as those terms are defined in Title III, she violated the Wiretap Act. Therefore, where there is no genuine dispute of material fact, George Pine is entitled to his cross motion for summary judgment as a matter of law.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
…show more content…
A parent must “demonstrate a good faith, objectively reasonable basis for believing that it is necessary and in the best interest of the child to consent on behalf of his or her minor child...” Pollock, 154 F.3d 601. Lily fails to meet the burden of proof under the Pollock test for vicarious consent. In Pollock, the defendant’s primary concern was for the wellbeing of the minor child. Cite. In the instant case, the Defendant has a dual concern, one for the wellbeing of the child and also to determine if her husband was cheating on her. In Pollock, the defendant felt that the plaintiff was trying to undermine her relationship with her daughter and noticed an emotional change in her daughter Id. In the instance case, the only reason Defendant had for suspected abuse was that Hunter said his mom “sometimes talks funny on the phone, becomes angry with him and yells at him” Compl. ¶ 16. Defendant also alleges that Hunter stated he gets scared talking to his mother sometimes. Compl. ¶ 16. Defendant fails to allege any changes in Hunters behavior to warrant her to consent to a wiretap. In Pollock, the only interceptions that defendant was trying to obtain were between the father and her daughter. Id. In the instant case, Defendant had a desire to intercept calls between both Hunter and Makenna as well as conversations between Makenna and George. In Pollock, the defendant was vicariously consenting to conversations between an adult and a minor. In this case, Defendant was attempting to apply the vicarious consent doctrine between two adults. Lily Pines claims are unsubstantiated and her subjective fear of potential abuse is not enough to shelter oneself with the protection of the doctrine of vicarious consent when she intentionally engaged in the prohibited act. Lily lacked a good faith objectively reasonable basis for