Maryland law technically gives an out for those recording crimes
You're right! Wire tap laws, implemented to protect telephone conversations and private conversations between two individuals usually speak to the interception of communications between two individuals without their consent. One-party consent is where one party has consented and knows the conversation is recorded. At the Acorn offices, both James and Hannah knew the conversations were being recorded, and there seemed to always be multiple individuals in the room which negates the argument of an expectation of privacy by one individual. There are many more nuances that a prosecutor/defendant can use, but generally law-makers don't like hidden cameras used to document crimes. They think about what they have done or could have done, and don't want to get caught.
law makers have not been able to update the laws as to the recording of audio and video together.
The parallel universe are computer network crimes. The laws being used still rely on old telephone data components as to the seizure of digital data.
What this case needs is a Federal Prosecutor (United States Attorney) to initiate a RICO investigation of ACORN. Then give James and Hannah limited-use immunity upon review of all of their recorded material. That would protect what has not been seen and give pathways to additional leads that can be pursued. RICO are the laws implemented to bring down organized crime. Racketing-Influence and Corrupt Organization statues. A big plus for a Federal prosecutor in RICO is that they can introduce to a federal court evidence of state crimes that were not charged. They can even go back prior to the end of statute limitations for criminal charges (usually 5 years) just to talk about a criminal pattern to introduce the criminal enterprise, or just how they function to break laws. ACORN has a long track record, so a basis for a RICO investigation has long been there. Another plus of RICO is that upon indictment, not just conviction, but a charge by a Grand Jury, a lot of financial assets can be seized. A RICO charge can put an enterprise out of business fast even before they go to trial by drying up their funds.
Just my take, I've been out of the business for awhile, so things could have changed.
See #89
they have no case against them.