This case questions the right of law enforcement to issue a warrant for an arrest based on an intercepted phone call, as heard by the telephone company's employee. This employee, Joseph Maco, had been in the process of repairing and "troubleshooting" telephone line malfunctions for the Pacific Telephone Company when he happened to cut into a conversation that was discussing a drug deal. He then relayed this information to the Escondido Police. The question the court sought to answer here was weather this action violated either federal or state laws with regards to wiretapping and eavesdropping.

Following the warrant, a search was conducted and the Police found "a quantity of capsules, seeds, 'green vegetable matter,' and other evidence." The defendants were then charged with marijuana possession, cultivation, and possession of other controlled substances.

The court questioned whether Maco had acted illegally in tapping the line, and whether is the right of the telephone company, as a public utility, " to insure that its systems are not used to facilitate criminal activity." Another core question is whether this action violated the defendants' right to privacy. The court cites "unambiguous language of section 631 and the clearly expressed purpose of the Legislature in enacting the Invasion of Privacy Act." In particular, they are interested in subdivision (a) of section 361, which proscribes criminal penalties for: " intentional wiretapping, wilfully attempting to learn the contents or meaning of a communication in transit over a wire, and attempting to use or communicate information obtained as a result of engaging in either of the previous two activities." The court decided that, due to a violation of subdivision (a), the warrant never should have been issued and the evidence obtained via the illegal wire tap was inadmissable in court.