The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a detective providing recording equipment to an individual, absent any limitations for use and no interaction thereafter, did not amount to the individual acting under supervision of an investigative or law enforcement officer. Seal v. State, 447 Md. 64, 80, 133 A.3d 1162, 1172 (2016). The court found that guidelines must be given to the person conducting the wiretapping, as well as at least some contact to monitor the progress. Id. at 79-81, 133 A.3d at 1172.
During the summer of 1982, ten-year-old Donald W. (“Donald”) frequently stayed at his step-grandmother’s house. Donald’s step-uncle, David Seal (“Seal”), also resided in the Montgomery County home. Donald testified that he awoke one night to Seal fondling his private parts. The sexual abuse continued until Donald entered the seventh grade. Approximately twenty years later, Donald contacted Seal about the abuse. Seal apologized for his prior behavior and offered to make payments to Donald, which Donald declined.
On January 22, 2013, Donald, a resident of West Virginia, went to the Montgomery County Police Station and spoke with Detective Tracey Copeland (“Copeland”) regarding the abuse. Copeland and Donald made several unsuccessful phone calls to Seal in an attempt to obtain a confession. Ultimately, Copeland provided Donald with the recording device, showed him how to operate it, and then sent him home with the equipment.