Sixth Circuit: Frank Fisher v. Michelle Perron

Where a state intermediate appellate holding gives a statute a certain construction, the reading is determinative for a federal court attempting to ascertain the views of the state courts, absent persuasive data to the contrary.

State tort of disclosure of private information requires disclosures to be materially highly offensive.

Wiretap Act exemption to one-party consent requires that the interception or recording be for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; facts here insufficient to establish that.

Frank Fisher v. Michelle Perron

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Jamal Cooper

Wiretap Act does not require a different application for each authorization, but merely that each application conform to the Act.

No clear error in authorizing the tap where many of the alternatives were discounted prospectively.

No error in denial of Franks hearing where the challenged omissions on the affidavit might be construed from the contents of the affidavit.

Sealing and delivery of tapes four days after the end of the tap did not transgress the two-day limit, as the government needed to confirm that the deft was no longer using that line.

Where trial judge accepts govt contention at trial that the content of the recorded conversation establishes that the confidential informant consented to the taping, no clear error in the admission of the tapes.

Parolee confidential informers can validly consent to the taping of conversations.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0116p-06.pdf