Explain the Misplaced Reliance Doctrine. When can electronic devices be used under the Misplace Reliance Doctrine without obtaining an electronic surveillance warrant?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The Misplaced Reliance Doctrine originated with the practice of eavesdropping, which involved people standing under a building's eaves and listening to conversations taking place inside. People in the building may not have been able to stop people who were attempting to listen to their conversations, but they could take precautions to make it more difficult for the eavesdroppers to hear what was said. These precautions included talking softly, allowing music or other noise to drown out the conversation, writing notes instead of speaking out loud, holding the conversation while they were walking to a different location, etc.
The Misplaced Reliance Doctrine is based on the fact that a person should be selective when sharing secrets. If a person confides secret information to another person, and that person does not keep the information secret, whose fault is it that the information was shared with the "wrong" people? In the eyes of the law, the blame is on the person who selected the person as a confidant. If the person had been more selective, the secrets would have remained secret. Taking this one step further, if a confidant in a criminal enterprise reveals the conspiracy to the police, it is the fault of the person who selected a person who was not trustworthy. The police can use the information to prosecute members of the conspiracy. The police can even "plant" a person undercover or give immunity to the person who "rats" on a "friend" to encourage someone to reveal more confidential information to the police.
Electronic recorders and microphones that transmit conversations to a backup team are the most commonly used electronic equipment in misplaced reliance situations. The U. S. Supreme Court views these items as a natural extension of the Misplaced Reliance Doctrine. It sees no difference between a false friend taking the stand and testifying about statements made in confidence, and the false friend having a tape recorder rigged so that the statements made in confidence are recorded verbatim for future use in court. Transmitting the conversation to a distant location, where it is recorded, is not substantively different from having the recorder in a pocket of the person who is involved in the conversation. The recorded conversations can be used in court, although it is somewhat more difficult for the prosecutor to establish the necessary foundation to have them admitted than it would be to have the person who made the recordings testify. In most cases, the person testifies and the tapes are used to corroborate the testimony.