People v. Davis

State charged Defendant with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, stemming from a drug transaction that a confidential informant surreptitiously recorded with an audio and video recording device hidden on his person. Audio recording was inadmissible, as recording constituted illegal eavesdropping because the recording did not fall within the scope of the authorized overhear as it did not name Defendant as the target. The prohibition does not extend to the video portion of the recording or the informant's personal knowledge of the drug transaction. Informant did not eavesdrop, but acted as a party to the conversation, and informant's in-person testimony is admissible. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring; LYTTON, dissenting.)