"No. 59, September Term, 2011. Court of Appeals of Maryland."
"The hearing judge denied the motion, citing federal case law defining the location of an "interception" as where the mobile communication was first intercepted or redirected and where it was first heard by law enforcement officers."
"Although, in a few aspects, Maryland's wiretapping statute is more protective of *1046 individual privacy rights than Title III of the Federal Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ("Title III"), generally the Maryland statute is an "offspring" of Title III. We have read analogous provisions in our statute to be in pari materia with Title III, as interpreted by federal courts. Because the Title III and Maryland wiretap statute definitions of "interception" are verbatim, we shall adopt here the federal gloss in determining the proper jurisdiction and scope for an ex parte wiretap order. Thus, as long as the "listening post" where the law enforcement officers first hear the intercepted communications is within the geographical jurisdiction of the court issuing the order, the interception is proper under the Maryland statute. Accordingly, we conclude that the motion to suppress evidence was denied properly by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals."
"In Pari Materia [Latin, Upon the same subject.] A designation applied to statutes or general laws that were enacted at different times but pertain to the same subject or object. Statutes in pari materia must be interpreted in light of each other since they have a common purpose for comparable events or items."
I win.
It's cute that you think adopting a federal gloss from a federal law has anything to do with citing Pennsylvania state law, as anything more than persuasive authority, in a Maryland state court. ---