reasoning or analysis used in such cases. Further, the device used there to intercept the private oral communications at issue was not secreted within earshot of those communications. Thus, the placement and use of the device did not invade the parties’ expected zone of privacy. In sum, even if Congress did not intend to include AM radios as an “intercepting device,” such an exclusion lends no support to the argument that the General Assembly did not intend a video camera to fall within this definition. Finally, this Court has indicated that Rhode Island’s wiretapping statute would be interpreted more strictly than its federal counterpart in “the interest of giving the full measure of protection to an individual’s privacy.” State v. Maloof, 114 R.I. 380, 390, 333 A.2d 676, 681 (1975) (<HOLDING>). In Maloof, we noted: “In the interest of
holding an allegation sufficient under rule 9b that the plan and the participants acting on behalf of the plan relied upon and are presumed to have relied upon defendants representations and nondisclosures to their detriment holding unconstitutional a free transfer provision by which students were allowed to transfer solely on a racial basis from the school to which they had been assigned by virtue of redistricting if they were in a racial minority in their new school holding that factfinder was allowed to consider whether the basis purportedly relied upon by defendant in its decision to fire plaintiff was actually a sound  as opposed to pretextual  basis upon which to make employment decisions holding that the warrants relied upon by the police to authorize their eavesdropping activities were invalid because they allowed interceptions that exceeded the duration allowed by law holding that questions about travel plans were permissible because they were completed within the time necessary to run the warrants check