When is a search warrant not required for monitoring a conversation according to People v Collins?

In the context of People v Collins, a search warrant is not required for monitoring a conversation when only one party to the conversation consents to the monitoring. This principle is derived from the understanding of reasonable expectations of privacy. Under the law, if at least one party is aware of and agrees to the monitoring, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy that would necessitate a search warrant.

This legal perspective hinges on the idea that individuals cannot reasonably expect privacy in a conversation if they have allowed another party to listen in. As a result, when one party consents to the recording or monitoring, the actions taken do not violate the privacy rights protected under the Fourth Amendment.

On the other hand, scenarios like requiring consent from all parties or monitoring in public places involve different legal standards and expectations regarding privacy. Monitoring conversations that concern a crime does not eliminate the need for a warrant in the absence of consent; rather, it is the consent that primarily governs whether a warrant is necessary.