The Maryland statute is referring to an “interception of a communication” not a “recording” of it.
Linda Tripp was prosecuted but the case was dismissed.
An anlysis of the Maryland statute is at:
http://www.rightgrrl.com/tripp/woods.html
******
federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which concluded in 1974...
The government has adopted the position of the trial court below that the intercepting device was the recorder and not an extension telephone. While such a view avoids the problem presented, we are simply not persuaded by this contention. We agree with appellant that the recording of a conversation is immaterial when the overhearing is itself legal. It is the means whereby the contents of the conversation are acquired that is crucial. See State v. Vizzini, 115 N.J. Super. 97, 278 A.2d 235. A recording device placed next to, or connected with, a telephone receiver cannot itself be the “acquiring” mechanism. It is the receiver which serves this function—the recorder is a mere accessory designed to preserve the contents of the communication. This interpretation comports squarely with the clear distinction drawn between “intercepting” and “recording” under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8) (a), which deals with judicially authorized interceptions: The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by any means authorized by this chapter shall, if possible, be recorded on tape or wire or other comparable device.
Maryland’s law is an INTERCEPT law not a recording law. Read that statement by the court very closely. Recording of a conversation is not an interception of that conversation.
ping..