Telephone Taping & Recording Laws

[Legal Affairs]

The following is from Internet Sources:

ARIZONIA UPDATE
AZ is a one party state, ARS 13-3005.A(1)(2), AND also permits a telephone "subscriber" (the person who orders the phone service and whose name is on the bill) to tape (intercept) calls without being a party to the conversation and without requiring any notification to any parties to the call, ARS 13-3012(5)(c).

I also seem to recall a case law decision from many years ago (the 1920's or the 1950's) that went to the Supreme Court andt affirmed that the federal law does not superceed state authority/statutes unless the call or the tap crosses state lines -- that is why each state went ahead and established their own guideline/statute.

"Education is what you get from reading the small print, Experience is what you get from not reading it"

Submitted By:
Jeff Boas, Executive Director
Affiliated Banking & Business Consultants
AZ PI License 9107002
P.O. Box 64988, Tucson, AZ 85728
email: jeffpi@aol.com
(http://members.aol.com/jeffpi/jeffpi.html)

1. ILLINOIS

Illinois is, by _statute_ a two party state. However, case law from both the IL Supreme Court and various Illinois appellate courts have declared Illinois a one-party state in the case of private citizens (businesses and plain folks - NOT law enforcement). The reigning concensus is that one-party consenual recording is merely "enhanced note-taking" and since some folks have total recall without recording, how can the other party have any expectation of privacy to a conversation held with another person.

Illinois requires prior consent of all participants to monitor or record a
phone conversation. Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 38, Sec. 14-2. There is no specific
business telephone exception, but in general courts have found extension
telephones do not constitute eavesdropping devices. Criminal penalties for
unlawful eavesdropping include up to three years' imprisonment or $10,000 in
fines and the civil remedy provides for recovery of actual and punitive
damages.

Here in the enlightened state of Illinois it IS ILLEGAL to monitor cordless phones.


2. WISCONSIN

Wisconsin is currently a one-party state though recent attempts in the legislature there have attempted, unsuccessfully thus far, to change it to two-party. Even so, any evidence gathered by a one-party consensual recording is inadmissible except in murder or drug cases so I am told. Perhaps someone from Wisconsin can further illuminate this situation.

garyshamus@admin.itol.com (Gary Wise)
Wisconsin is a one party state however there is a problem with just one
party consent. The Wisconsin Stats 885.365 Recorded telephone conversation
(1) states "Evidence obtained as the result of the use of voice recording
equipment for recording of telephone conversations, by way of interception
of a communication or in any other nammmer, shall be totally inadmissible in
the court of this state in civil actions, except as provided by 968.28 to
968.37." Exceptions are it the party is informed before the recording is
informed at the time that the conversation is being recorded and that any
evidence thereby obtained may be used in a court of law or such recording is
made throught a recorder connector proved by the telecommunicatons utility
as defined in WI Stats 968.28 - 968.37 (which is the stat for court ordered
wiretaps) which automatically produces a distinctive recorder tone that is
repeated at intervals of approximately 15 seconds". Fire department or law
enforcement agency are exempt as are court ordered wire tapes.

Also a recording on the phone made from a out of state call or made to an
out of state party, has to have the party informed of the recording and his
consent or the tone on line, every 15 seconds, or a consent in writing
before the recording is started.

Needless to say this does not allow a person not a party to the conversation
to record any part of the conversation without the parties to the
conversation being informed the third party is recording the conversation.

bhrodey@starnetinc.com
My name is Bob Hrodey and I am a licensed investigator/agency head in both IL and WI.
In the message that Ralph Thomas sent you he indicated that there is a discrepancy
between, or perhaps disagreement/confusion is a better word, a few of us as to what the
law on recording is in WI.

I have been told that "one party consensual recording", i.e. where I tape record a
telephone conversation OF WHICH I AM A PARTY with an individual such as yourself who is
not aware the conversation we are having is being record is legal, however the resultant
tape may be inadmissible as evidence in court unless it is a serious felony (I think
either kidnapping or murder, maybe drug conspiracy, etc.).

Someone else has said that this is not the case and that unless BOTH parties are aware
of the tape-recording, it is a clear violation of the law and furthermore the detective
involved is subject to revocation of his license.

If you know what the law is on this (case law as well as statutory) would you please let
us know? I'm trying to get my hands on a copy of the WI statute as I have a case
pending in WI that will potentially involve surreptitious recording of conversations
which I may have with other subjects. Obviously, if it is illegal in WI I won't be
using the technique.

Needless to say, the other voices who claim to know the answer haven't come forth with
any statutory authority. Nor, for that matter, has my source in WI whom I've asked to
send me a copy. OTOH, I did discuss the matter with the client, a WI attorney, and he
said it could legally be done although he questioned whether the tapes themselves could
be introduced as evidence or would merely be beneficial as "enhanced notes."

Would really appreciate any input you can provide. Ralph started compiling a list of
the law on this topic in all 50 states and he's got about 45-46 of them on file. This
is just a point of contention we need to clear up to make the list as accurate as we
can.



3. CALIFORNIA
< tfriend@best.com (Timothy Friend)>
Although CA is a 2 party state, you can also record a conversation if you
include that annoying beep on the recorder and for the parties to hear.
This information was included with my telephone bill.

<73141.2400@CompuServe.COM> (Warren Levicoff)
California prohibits telephone monitoring or recording, including the use of information obtained through interception unless all parties to the
conversation consent. Cal. Penal Code Secs. 631, 632. There is no statutory business telephone exception and the relevant case law all but excludes this possibility. California courts have recognized "implied" consent as being sufficient to satisfy the statute where one party has expressly agreed to the taping and the other continues the conversation after having been informed that the call is being recorded. Violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. A civil plaintiff may recover the greater of $3,000 or three times the amount of any actual damages sustained.

4. WASHINGTON
Washington is a two party State. Some of us work around that by going to the indian reservations or any federally owned property to make the call--Federal law is a one party consent.

<73141.2400@CompuServe.COM> (Warren Levicoff) Washington requires the consent of all parties. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Sec.
9.73.030 (Supp. 1979).

5. INDIANA
In the State of Indiana it is one party authorization.
As far as what is addmissable in court it is still being tested
per each case individually by the prosecutors office in the county
in which the investigation or case was done.

6. NEW YORK
New York is a one party state, however some courts will not admit an
interview with a witness to an event if they were not informed they were
being recorded. Apparently the judge may use his descretion.
William Sullivan
New York is a one party state, Per NYS Penal Law, Sec. 250.00(1)

7. PENNSYLVANIA:
PA is two party with the following exception: Any individual may record a phone conversation without the other party's consent if:
1) The non-consenting party threatens the life or physical well-being of the consenting party, or any member of his/her family.

2) The non-consenting party commits any criminal action (the statute specifically uses the example of telling the consenting party that they have marijuana they want the consenter to buy, but does state ANY criminal act).


8. GEORGA
BTW, I was assigned (as a local law enforcement officer) to a joint federal/state/local DEA drug task force. When we knew we would be prosecuting a case under state law (Georgia), Georgia laws regarding eavesdropping applied, no matter where we called, because the call originated in, and the case would be prosecuted in, a one-party state.Just a thought (of which I've had several....)
Bob GSES Investigations, Inc.

9. CONNECTICUT
Connecticut joined the ranks of two party consent about 3 years ago. The State Police here is quite diligent in enforcing the law. Ironic, since they were the ones responsible for the law going inti effect by illegaly recording the telephone calls of prisoners at the individual barrack when arrested.

10. MARYLAND <73141.2400@CompuServe.COM> (Warren Levicoff)
Maryland is a two-party-consent state. Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc.Code Ann. Sec. 10-402 (1980).

11. MASSACHUETTS <73141.2400@CompuServe.COM> (Warren Levicoff)
Massachusetts requires consent of al parties unless another exception applies. Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272, Sec. 99. Telephone equipment which is furnished to a phone company subscriber and used in the ordinary course of business is excluded from the definition of unlawful interception devices. Id. at 99(B)(3). Office intercommunication systems used in the ordinary course of business are similarly exempt. Id. at 99(D)(1)(b). The criminal penalty is a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. In civil litigation, an injured party may recover actual and punitive damages as well as costs and fees. It is a separate violation to divulge or use the information garnered through unlawful interception and an additional penalty of up to two years in prison or $5,000 may be imposed on this count.

12. MONTANA <73141.2400@CompuServe.COM> (Warren Levicoff)
Montana is a two-party consent state. Mont. Rev. Codes Secs. 94-8-114
(1973).

13. NEW HAMPSHIRE <73141.2400@CompuServe.COM> (Warren Levicoff)
New Hampshire requires the consent of all parties. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
Secs. 570 A:2 (Replacement 1974).

14. OREGON <73141.2400@CompuServe.COM> (Warren Levicoff)
Oregon requires the consent of all parties. Or. Rev. Stat. Secs. 165.540
(Replacement 1979).

15. PENNSYLVANIA <73141.2400@CompuServe.COM> (Warren Levicoff)
Pennsylvania requires the consent of all parties. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. Sec. 5704(4), but surreptitious use of extensions for these purposes constitutes interception within the wiretapping statute. Felony penalties may be imposed for violation of the Pennsylvania statute.

THE FEDERAL LAW

READ THE FEDERAL LAW
Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 119 USC, entitled Wire and Electronic
Commuications Interceptions found at the following web sites

CORNELL UNIVERSITY
http://www.law.cornell/edu

SEAMLESS WEB PAGES
http://www.Seamless.com/rcl/privacy.html


The federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510 et seq., prohibits the willful interception of telephone communication by means of any electronic, mechanical, or other device without an applicable exemption. There are two principal exceptions:

Federal Exceptions
Consent: In the absence of more restrictive state law, it is permissible to intercept and record a telephone conversation if one or both of the parties to the call consents. Consent means authorization by only one participant in the call; single-party consent is provided for by specific statutory exemption under federal law. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(d).

"Business telephone" exception
The "business telephone" exception, which generally allows monitoring of
calls and taping over an extension phone which is both provided to a subscriber in the ordinary course of a telephone company's business and is being used by that subscriber in the ordinary course of its business. This provision generally permits businesses to monitor the conversations of their employees, including personal conversations.

Penalties: The federal statutes provide criminal penalties for unlawful interception of telephone conversations, including up to five years' imprisonment or a maximum of $10,000 in fines. They also allow for civil remedies, by which private parties are entitled to recover actual and punitive damages, together with fees and costs.

RECORDING AND LAWYERS: <73141.2400@CompuServe.COM>
(Warren Levicoff)
Under ABA Formal Opinion 337 (August 10, 1974), and certain state and local opinions, it may be unethical for an attorney to make an undisclosed recording of other persons.

RECORDING AND FGCC RULES <73141.2400@CompuServe.COM>
(Warren Levicoff)
The FCC Regulations require telephone carriers to file tariffs with the Commission to the effect that: (1) adequate notice be given to all parties that their conversation is being recorded; (2) that such notice be given by the use of an automatic tone warning device; and (3) that the tone warning device be furnished, installed and maintained by the telephone company along specified technical guidelines. 11 FCC 1033, 1050, 12 FCC 1005, 1008 (1947). These regulations are directed toward the telephone carriers, and do not make recording a criminal offense. However, a person who fails to use the "beep" tone as required may have his telephone service terminated.

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES <73141.2400@CompuServe.COM> (Warren Levicoff) Individuals and businesses that make surreptitious recordings often do so
with the expectation that the recordings will be useful as evidence. Such
recordings are subject to significant barriers to use as evidence. First, if
made in violation of either federal or state law, the recordings will almost certainly be inadmissi- ble. Second, even if lawfully recorded, the tapes will be exempt from the hearsay rule and will not, in most jurisdictions, be usable for impeachment. Anyone contemplating an evidentiary use of surreptitious recordings should consult with an attorney prior to making the recording.

EXTENSIVE REMARKS

REMARKS OREGON
In Oregon there has been case law regarding calling into a 2 party consent state. Basically if you are working on a case that is being tried in Oregon and you called into a state with two party consent since the case is being tried in Oregon (1 party state)the jurisdictional state prevails and the
tape is admitted into evidence.

Phil: Agrue & Associates Investigations Inc.,2061 NW Hoyt St. * Suite K * Portland OR 97209,Voice * 503-246-7561 * Fax * 503-228-2915
Home Page:http://www.investigations.com/~pagrue



GRA Associates, Inc. wrote:
(Jim Wingate)


An open question to the list:
I have yet to get a definitive answer on the question that follows. If you have experience or ideas towards its resolution, please post a response: With regards to recording convsersations: If I am calling (interstate, long distance) from a 1-party state (e.g., Texas) to a 2-party state (e.g.,
California), is it legal to record the conversation? Would this entail ICCor FCC regulations?As I have heard from a few other PIs; ask a different attorney, get a different answer.

Bud Andrews. Action Valley Investigations, CA PI#18429
Serving the information needs of Southern California
Vox: 805-735-5990, 800-201-9088, Fax: 805-733-4094

To All,
In April 1992 I wrote a letter to the FBI office in Cleveland, Ohio and asked them specifically what the federal laws were regarding recordings. The Principal Legal Advisor responded by referring me to the U.S. Code sections 2510-2521 of Title 18, specifically section 2511 (2) (d). (I have not checked to see if the law has been changed since 1992). Section 2511 (2) (d) states as follows, "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such a person is a party to the communications or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State". If I were calling from a one party state to a two party state I would think that the law would apply where the phone call originated from, that being the one party state. I have not researched this yet. Just putting my 2 cents in.


Regarding your question of dominating state law, it doesn't matter where the call is placed. From or to two party consent is still two party consent. This comes from a source in the FBI. Additionally, it then becomes a federal crime. Same exceptions as the PA law regarding recordings I sent you earlier.

Matt Forman
NIS Investigative Services




Shawn Goudge, BA(Hons) Law Paralegal Services in: GOUDGE LEGAL CONSULTING -Summary Offences,PO Box 26123, 72 Robertson Rd -Small Claims Nepean, Ontario, Canada -Landlord Tenant Relations K2H 9R6 -Regulatory Law, Ph (613) 786-6384 -Immigration Law
E-Mail: sgoudge@cyberus.ca -Process Serving


Dear Stephanie, Mr. Thomas, and others:
That is a very interesting question, one that I hope ALL P.I.'s will give a whole lot of thought to before attempting to test their respective laws. Recording (or wiretapping) is an area that we all have to be very concerned about, as breaking the law can wind one in prison real fast, as well as having his/her license revoked if the infraction occurs in their respective home state, not to mention the aggravation of ourselves being the defendant, instead of the witness, in court.

I am not an attorney; however, I am going to "take the plunge" and address this matter head on, as I THINK I know the answer to your question and I'm afraid my fellow investigator friends need to be extremely careful with this matter.

My understanding regarding interstate vs. intrastate laws is the same as yours mentioned below. In all cases that I am familiar with, the stricter law ALWAYS applies, that being a stricter state statute takes prescedence over a more lax federal law. The feds may not prosecute you, but your state will, so what's the difference? Either way, you still land up in jail and have your license revoked! In addition, if you are making a recording with the purpose of admitting it into court as evidence, your clients will not be too thankful when they see all the trouble you've caused them and yourself and your evidence is thrown out.

As to recording interstate calls, try using the "K.I.S.S./JDDI" principle (keep it simple/just don't do it)...

Let's try the following example: You place a recorded call from Iowa to Maryland. Iowa is a ONE party state and Maryland is a TWO (actually, ALL, by Maryland state statute) party state. Therefore, the person originating the call in Iowa (yourself), is being recorded as well as the target person in Maryland being surreptitiously recorded. No Iowa laws were broken (you in Iowa are aware of the recording). No federal laws were broken (you in Iowa are aware of the recording). But, what about Maryland?

ANSWER: If Maryland has a statute (and it does) requiring ALL parties to be aware of the telephone recording, and you (in Iowa) are surreptitiously recording a person in Maryland, YOU HAVE IN FACT BROKEN A MARYLAND STATE LAW, AS THIS IS ILLEGAL IN MARYLAND. The person in Maryland is being recorded without his/her knowledge or consent, which by law is illegal in the state of Maryland.

BOTTOM LINE: You have the fed's blessing, you have Iowa's blessing (therefore, your Iowa license is safe), but if you ever travel into Maryland the cops can - and will - throw you in prison real fast!!! As long as you stay in Iowa, you're fine - just don't visit Maryland...

WORSE CASE SCENARIO: you committed a criminal offense in Maryland (wiretapping) and you are from out of state (Iowa). The Maryland officials notify the feds, so now the feds want you since you've committed a federal offense (NOT wiretapping), by committing a state offense (Maryland) from across state lines. Gets complicated, doesn't it!!! Is it really worth it?

I am pretty confident that I am correct on this matter, Stephanie. However, my rule of thumb in investigations has always been that if you THINK you may possibly be breaking a law, you probably are!!! Therefore, DON'T DO IT, unless you are absolutely sure you are within the law of ALL states you are conducting business in, even if by phone. No client can ever pay you enough money to knowing violate a law, when it is supposedly our purpose to stay within the law. Agreed? Besides, you may end up winning your personal case, but is the time and expense in defending yourself really worth it?

You may be able to tell your story on "Oprah", but your professional credibility is shot.

Hope this helps, and that this does not create a new flood of e-mail...

Sincerely,
James Brewer,President
Angel & Brewer Limited,PO Box 2434
La Grange, IL 60525 USA (Chicago metro area)
Phone: 708-579-1776, Fax: 708-354-2933
E-mail: AngelBrewer@msn.com
Web site: http://www.pihome.com/angelbrewer



CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS QUESTION CONCERNING ONE PARTY/TWO PARTY TELEPHONE RECORDINGS?

You might also want to note the rules for INTERSTATE calls. My understanding is that A) federal law allows one-party consent recordings and also that B) state law that is stricter predominates..... Does the state law where the call ORIGINATES dominate? Does it matter? If I call from California to Texas, for example, am I held liable....

-stephanie


Steph:

I don't know-I'm not a lawyer-have asked some and gotten difference answers but will (frw) to group and see what we get back.

Ralph Thomas
National Association Of Investigative Specialists
Thomas Investigtive Publilcations, Inc.
http://www.pimall.com/nais/home.html
P 512-719-3595 F 512-719-3594


Best bet- instead of recording, do something that is permissible and admissible in court: have a third party (of your choosing) listen in on the conversation and write it all down. This can then be turned in to a "witness statement". It helps to have the third party do the phone dialing, too, and include this fact in the statement.

John Grogan/Los Angeles (818) 883-6969 (we do latent fingerprinting and other assignments for other PIs throughout California)


Thanks. But isn't that "eavesdropping"? Or is eavesdropping only regulated when it's technologically enhanced or violating a reasonable expectation of privacy? In other words, when one is talking on the phone should one assume there might be an extension? .....

just curious...
-stephanie


Boy now that's a can of worms! I belief that attorneys could have a field day with that question! Although personally I belief that the spirt of the law when it was written was applying to electronic means of recording conversations, I have this feeling you'd have to go to the US Supreme Court to get that one answered in any finalization.

Ralph Thomas
National Association Of Investigative Specialists
Thomas Investigtive Publilcations, Inc.
http://www.pimall.com/nais/home.html
P 512-719-3595 F 512-719-3594



This to may be illegal, depending on the state you live in. It is still the interception of a oral communication with out the permission or concent of all parties. Just because it is not being recorded on tape does not mean it it legal. Here in PA, it is what is call ALL party concent. Although I may not agree with the law, it still must be obeyed. Hopefully someday it will be change to one party concent. Well, enough for now. Good Luck to all.

Roger J. Willard, P.I., 3304 Main Street, Conestoga, PA 17516
717-872-7561 rwillard@success.net,Author, MISSING PERSONS, USA - Paladin Press, Professional Speaker - Check out our Web Site
www.igateway.com/mall/special/private


<74777.3001@compuserve.com (Blackmoor)>
>>Section 2511 (2) (d) states as follows, "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such a person is a party to the communications or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State".

Now THIS makes sense to me. It's reassurring to run across a reasonable law once in a while.

Brandon Blackmoor, Harry Browne for President
Black Gate Publishing <http://www.HarryBrowne96.org>
<http://users.aol.com/blackgate>


Please take note that while we are discussing one party-two party recording, there is a difference between wiretapping and recording conversations. I am trying to find the law on this right now and will post it as soon as I have it. Most states recognize the recording of phone calls by businesses as part of the business operation. A case was tried on this as wiretapping and it went all the way to the S.Court. The court ruled that wiretapping was the surrepticious (gad- what spelling) recording of a phone call (simply put) for possible illegal purposes, etc., while the recording of a phone call by a business was a normal course of events in this day of rapid communications, etc. We have recorders on our incoming business lines and record all conversations as a normal course of events. We then put the tape (we use microtapes) with the client file. If the party does not become a client, we erase the tape and reuse it. It has made keeping up with client information a whole lot simpler.
Lee Griggs


After some of the discussion with respect to monitoring telephone conversations, I would suggest all read 18 USC Sec. 2511, Part 1, Chapter 119. This document (best to use Gopher) is a must for all who are involved in any covert assignments where monitoring is employed! Mac Gray, Gray & Associates www.citynet.net/personal/sharkpi/
graypi@main.citynet.net

[Technical Support]

STATE BY STATE:

• ALABAMA:
  Ala. Code § 13A-11-30, -31 (Michie 1999): Unlawful eavesdropping is defined as the overhearing or recording of the contents of a private communication without the consent of at least one person engaged in the communication. The statute has been interpreted as creating a right to privacy in communications -- specifically, a right not to have communications overheard, recorded or disclosed without consent. Ages Group v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 22 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (M.D. Ala. 1998).
  
  Criminal eavesdropping involves the intentional use of "any device" to overhear or record communications, whether the eavesdropper is present or not, without one party's consent. Criminal eavesdropping is a misdemeanor. Ala. Code § 13A-11-31 (1999). Knowingly divulging information obtained through illegal eavesdropping is a misdemeanor as well. Ala. Code § 13A-11-35. Misdemeanors in Alabama carry a maximum jail sentence of one year. Ala. Code § 13A-1-2 (1999).
  
  While hidden cameras are not expressly addressed, it is a misdemeanor to engage in "criminal surveillance," defined as secret observation or photography while trespassing on private property. Criminal surveillance does not include observation on a public street. Ala. Code § 13A-11-32 (1999).
  
• ALASKA:
  Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310 (1999): It is illegal in Alaska to use an eavesdropping device to hear or record a conversation without the consent of at least one party to that conversation, or to disclose or publish information that one knows, or should know, was illegally obtained. A person who is not a party to a private conversation who receives information from that conversation cannot legally divulge or publish the information. Alaska Stat. § 42.20.300 (1999).
  
  The state's highest court has held that the eavesdropping statute clearly was intended to prohibit third-party interception of communications and is not applicable to a participant in a conversation. Palmer v. Alaska, 604 P.2d 1106 (Alaska 1979). Any violation of the eavesdropping laws is a misdemeanor, and suppression of the contents in court is the only civil penalty authorized. Alaska Stat. § 42.20.330 (1999). The state hidden camera statute applies to images that include nudity, and only if subjects believe they are not being viewed by the person responsible for the recording. Alaska Stat. § 11.61.123.
  
• ARIZONA:
  Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3005 (1999): Interception of a wire or electronic communication by an individual who is not a party, without the consent of someone who is a party to the communication, is a felony. The electronic communications referred to in the statute include wireless and cellular calls. The overhearing of a conversation by an individual who is not present, without the consent of a party to that conversation, is also a felony. Both violations are classified as "class 5" felonies, which are the second least serious felonies in Arizona.
  
  In addition, a state appellate court has held that a criminal defendant's contention that police officers violated this law by recording their interviews with him without his consent was meritless because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interview room. Arizona v. Hauss, 688 P.2d 1051 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
  
• ARKANSAS:
  Ark. Code § 5-60-120 (1999): Intercepting or recording any wire, oral, or cellular or cordless phone conversations is a misdemeanor, unless the person recording is a party to the conversation, or one of the parties to the conversation has given prior consent. Arkansas law also criminalizes the "interception" of a message transmitted by telegraph or telephone in its "public utility" laws. Ark. Code § 23-17-107 (1999).
  
  State law makes it illegal to use any camera or "image recording device" to secretly view or videotape a person in any place "where that person is in a private area out of public view, has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and has not consented to the observation." Ark. Code § 5-16-101 (1999)
  
• CALIFORNIA:
  Cal. Penal Code § 631, 632 (Deering 1999): It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties.
  
  It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from such an interception. A first offense is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and imprisonment for no more than one year. Subsequent offenses carry a maximum fine of $10,000 and jail sentence of up to one year.
  
  Eavesdropping upon or recording a conversation, whether by telephone (including cordless or cellular telephone) or in person, that a person would reasonably expect to be confined to the parties present, carries the same penalty as intercepting telephone or wire communications. Conversations occurring at any public gathering that one should expect to be overheard, including any legislative, judicial or executive proceeding open to the public, are not covered by the law.
  
  Anyone injured by a violation of the wiretapping laws can recover civil damages of $5,000 or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(a) (Deering 1999).
  
  An appellate court has ruled that using a hidden video camera violates the statute. California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (1989).
  
• COLORADO:
  Colo Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303 (1999): Recording or overhearing a telephone conversation, or any electronic communication, without the consent of a party to the conversation is a felony punishable by a fine of between $1,000 and $100,000 and one year to 18 months in jail. Recording of a communication from a cordless telephone, however, is a misdemeanor. Colo Rev. Stat. § 18-1-105 (1999).
  
  Using or disclosing information obtained through illegal wiretapping is prohibited if there is reason to know the information was obtained illegally. Anyone who is not "visibly present" during a conversation who overhears or records the conversation without the consent of at least one of the parties commits a felony carrying the same punishment as a telephone interception, as does anyone who discloses the contents of such a conversation. Colo Rev. Stat § 18-9-304 (1999).
  
  However, nothing in these statutes "shall be interpreted to prevent a news agency, or an employee thereof, from using the accepted tools and equipment of that news medium in the course of reporting or investigating a public and newsworthy event." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-305 (1999).
  
• CONNECTICUT:
  Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d: It is an invasion of privacy to tape a telephone conversation in Connecticut without the consent of all parties. Consent should be in writing or should be given on the recording, or a verbal warning that the conversation is being taped should be included in the recording.
  
  Anyone who records a telephone conversation without the consent of all the parties is subject to liability for civil damages, as well as litigation costs and attorney fees. In addition, it is a felony punishable by imprisonment for one to five years for anyone who is not a party to a conversation to mechanically overhear or record that conversation, including telephonic and cellular or wireless communications and face-to-face discussions, without the consent of at least one party. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-187, 189 (1999).
  
• DELAWARE:
  Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2402(c)(4) (1999): Delaware's wiretapping and surveillance law specifically allows an individual to "intercept" (defined as acquiring the contents of a communication through a mechanical device) any wire, oral or electronic communication to which the individual is a party, or a communication in which any one of the parties has given prior consent, so long as the communication is not intercepted with a criminal or tortious intent.
  
  However, another Delaware privacy law makes it illegal to intercept "without the consent of all parties thereto a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately, including private conversation. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4). The wiretapping law is much more recent, and at least one federal court has held that, even under the privacy law, an individual can record his own conversations. United States v. Vespe, 389 F. Supp. 1359 (1975).
  
  Under the wiretapping law, communications intercepted illegally, or the disclosure of the contents of illegally recorded communications, can result in prosecution for a felony and a fine of up to $10,000. Del. Code Ann. tit 11, § 2402 (b) (1999). Civil liability also can be imposed in the amount of actual damages or a fine of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is more, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2409 (1999).
  
  Installing a camera or other recording device "in any private place, without consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there" is a misdemeanor, and under a 1999 amendment, the use of hidden cameras to record individuals dressing or undressing in a private place is a felony. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(2), (6) (1999)
  
• DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
  D.C. Code Ann. § 23-542 (1999): It is legal to record or disclose the contents of a wire or oral communication where the person recording is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the recording is done with criminal or injurious intent. A recording made without proper consent can be punished criminally by a fine of no more than $10,000 or imprisonment for no more than five years. However, disclosure of the contents of an illegally recorded communication cannot be punished criminally if the contents of the communication have "become common knowledge or public information."
  
  Anyone who illegally records or discloses the contents of a communication is subject to civil liability for the greater of actual damages, damages in the amount of $100 per day for each day of violation, or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. D.C. Code Ann. § 23-554 (1999.)
  
• FLORIDA:
  Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03 (1999): All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording or disclosing without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain, or the communication is the radio portion of a cellular conversation. Such first offenses and the interception of cellular communications are misdemeanors.
  
  Anyone whose communications have been illegally intercepted may recover actual damages or $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.10 (1999).
  
  A federal appellate court has held that because only interceptions made through an "electronic, mechanical or other device" are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate the law. The court found that business telephones are not the type of devices addressed in the law and, thus, that a life insurance company did not violate the law when it routinely recorded business-related calls on its business extensions. Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).
  
• GEORGIA:
  Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-62 (1999): Secretly recording or overhearing a conversation held in a private place, whether carried out orally or by wire or electronic means, is criminally punishable as a felony under statutory provisions regarding invasions of privacy. However, the law expressly provides that it does not prohibit a person who is a party to a conversation from recording and does not prohibit recording if one party to the conversation has given prior consent. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-66 (1999).
  
  Interception of a private cellular telephone conversation without the consent of at least one of the parties is a misdemeanor. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-66.1 (1999).
  
  Use of a hidden camera "without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view" is illegal. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-62(2) (1999).
  
• HAWAII:
  Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42 (Michie 1999): Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording, so long as no criminal or tortious purpose exists. Unlawful interceptions or disclosures of private communications are punishable as felonies.
  
  The one-party consent rule does not apply, however, to the installation of a recording device in a "private place" that will amplify or broadcast conversations outside that private place. All parties who have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that place must consent to the installation of a recording device. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3) (Michie 1999).
  
  Civil penalties for unlawful interception or disclosure include the greater of actual damages or any profits made by the violator, $100 for each day of violation, or $10,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-48 (Michie 1999). A hotel room has been found by the Hawaii Supreme Court to be a private place where a recording device cannot legally be installed without the consent of the room's occupants. Hawaii v. Lo, 675 P.2d 754 (Haw. 1983).
  
• IDAHO:
  Idaho Code § 18-6702 (1999): Although legislation criminalizes the interception and disclosure of wire or oral communications, it specifically allows interception when one of the parties has given prior consent. Punishment for the felony of an illegal interception or disclosure can include up to five years in prison and as much as $5,000 in fines. Anyone whose communications are unlawfully intercepted can sue for recovery of actual damages, $100 a day per day of violation or $1,000 -- whichever is more. Punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees also can be recovered. Idaho Code § 18-6709 (1999).
  
• ILLINOIS:
  720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-1, -2 (and as modified by Public Act 91-657, 1999 ILL. ALS 657): An eavesdropping device cannot be used to record or overhear a conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation under criminal statutes. An eavesdropping device is anything used to hear or record a conversation, whether the conversation is in person or conducted by any means other than face-to-face conversation, such as a telephone conversation.
  
  In addition, it is criminally punishable to disclose information one knows or should know was obtained through an eavesdropping device. Offenses of the eavesdropping law are punishable as felonies, with first offenses categorized as lesser felonies than subsequent offenses. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages is authorized as well. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-6 (1999).
  
  Standard radio scanners are not eavesdropping devices, according to a 1990 decision from an intermediate appellate court. Illinois v. Wilson, 554 N.E.2d 545 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990).
  
  It is also illegal for any person to "videotape, photograph, or film another person without that person's consent in a restroom, tanning bed, or tanning salon." 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/26-4(a) (1999).
  
• INDIANA:
  Ind. Code Ann. § 35-33.5-1-5 (Burns 1999): The recording or acquiring of the contents of a telephonic or telegraphic communication by someone who is neither the sender nor the receiver is a felony and can be the basis for civil liability. Ind. Code Ann. § 35-33.5-5-5 (Burns 1999).
  
  Civil liability may require the payment of actual damages, $100 per day for each day of violation or $1,000 -- whichever is greater -- and punitive damages, court costs and attorney fees. Ind. Code Ann. § 35-33.5-5-4 (Burns 1999).
  
• IOWA:
  Iowa Code § 727.8 (1997): It is a misdemeanor in Iowa under general criminal laws to tap into a communication of any kind, including telephone conversations, unless the person listening or recording is a sender or recipient of the communication, or is openly present and participating in the conversation. Thus, one party to a communication generally may record it without the consent of the other parties.
  
  Iowa also has more specific legislation regarding the interception of communications that expressly allows the interception of wire, oral or electronic communications through use of a mechanical device by a party to the communication, or with the consent of at least one party, in the absence of any criminal or tortious intent.
  
  Illegal interception and disclosure of intercepted information under this legislation are misdemeanors, and anyone whose communications have been intercepted is expressly provided with injunctive relief. 1999 Iowa Advance Legis. Serv. Senate File 309 (amending Iowa Code § § 808B (1997)).
  
• KANSAS:
  Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4001 (1998): Unlawful eavesdropping consists of secretly listening to, recording, or amplifying private conversations or using any device to intercept a telephone or wire communication "without the consent of the person in possession or control of the facilities for such wire communication." Violations are misdemeanors. A criminal breach of privacy, punishable as a misdemeanor as well, occurs when any means of private communication is intercepted without the consent of the sender or receiver. Divulging the existence or contents of any type of private communication, whether carried out by telephone or even letter, is also a misdemeanor if the person knows the message was intercepted illegally. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4002 (1998). The state's highest court has interpreted the eavesdropping and privacy statutes to sanction one-party consent for taping of conversations and in interpreting both statutes stated: "In other words, any party to a private conversation may waive the right to privacy and the non-consenting party has no Fourth Amendment or statutory right to challenge the waiver." Kansas v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984).
  
• LOUISIANA:
  La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1303 (2000): Unless a criminal or tortious purpose exists, a person can record any conversations transmitted by wire, oral or electronic means to which he is a party, or when one participating party has consented.
  
  A violation of the law, whether by recording or disclosing the contents of a communication without proper consent, carries a fine of not more than $10,000 and jail time of not less than two and not more than 10 years at hard labor, without an opportunity for probation, parole or a suspended sentence. Civil damages are expressly authorized as well. Actual damages can be recovered -- minimum damages in any case will be the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000 -- along with punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1312 (2000).
  
  The use of any type of hidden camera to observe or record a person where that person has not consented is illegal if the recording "is for a lewd or lascivious purpose." La. Rev. Stat. § 14:283 (2000).
  
• MAINE:
  Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 709 (1999): Interception of wire and oral communications is prohibited under the state criminal code, and an interceptor is someone other than the sender or receiver of a communication who is not in the range of "normal unaided hearing" and has not been given the authority to hear or record the communication by a sender or receiver.
  
  Disclosure of the contents of intercepted communications, knowing the information was obtained by interception, is a violation of the criminal code as well. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 710 (1998).
  
  Anyone whose communications have been intercepted can sue for civil damages and recover the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or actual damages, and also attorney fees and litigation costs. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 711 (1999).
  
  A hidden cameras law makes it illegal to use a camera to view or record a person in a private place, "including, but not limited to, changing or dressing rooms, bathrooms and similar places," or in a public place if one views any portion of another person's body "when that portion of the body is in fact concealed from public view under clothing." Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, §511. (1999)
  
• MARYLAND:
  Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-402 (1999): Where a person is a party to a wire, oral or electronic communication and all parties have consented, recording is legal. But all-party consent will not make the recording legal if there is a criminal or tortious purpose behind it.
  
  Disclosing the contents of intercepted communications with reason to know they were obtained unlawfully is a crime as well.
  
  Violations of the law are felonies punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years and a fine of not more than $10,000. Civil liability for violations can include the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, along with attorney fees and litigation costs. Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-410 (1999).
  
  State courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus, where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker's consent did not violate the wiretapping law. Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997); see also Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986) (salesman's presentation in stranger's home not assumed to carry expectation of privacy).
  
• MASSACHUSETTS:
  Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , § 99 (1999): It is a crime to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without the consent of all parties in Massachusetts. The penalty for violating the law is a fine of up to $10,000 and a jail sentence of up to five years.
  
  Disclosure of the contents of an illegally recorded conversation, when accompanied by the knowledge that it was obtained illegally, is a misdemeanor that can be punished with a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to two years. Civil damages are expressly authorized for the greater of actual damages, $100 for each day of violation or $1,000. Punitive damages and attorney fees also are recoverable.
  
• MICHIGAN:
  Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c (1999): A private conversation cannot legally be overheard or recorded without the consent of all participants. Illegal eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000.
  
  In addition, any individual who divulges information he knows, or reasonably should know, was obtained through illegal eavesdropping is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539e (1999). Civil liability for actual and punitive damages also are sanctioned. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h (1999).
  
  The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as only applying to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties. Black v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
  
  The state Supreme Court, however, stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a conversation "may not unilaterally nullify other participants' expectations of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation" and that the overriding inquiry should be whether the parties "intended and reasonably expected that the conversation was private." Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108, (Mich. 1999).
  
• MINNESOTA:
  Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 (1999): It is legal for a person to record a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording -- so long as no criminal or tortious intent accompanies the recording. Unlawful recordings, or disclosure of their contents if there is knowledge or reason to know of the illegal acquisition, carry maximum penalties of imprisonment for five years and fines of $20,000. In addition, civil liability for violations statutorily can include three times the amount of actual damages, as well as punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. Minn. Stat. § 626A.13 (1999).
  
  Under state court interpretations, when an employee of a local television station secretly videotaped a veterinarian treating a pet in a private home for an investigative news report, the station did not violate the wiretapping law because its employee was a party to the communication and it had no tortious intent. Regardless of the fact that allegations of tortious trespass existed, the court found the station's intent was commercial, not tortious. Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 526 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), cert. denied, 1998 Minn. LEXIS 77 (Minn. Jan. 28, 1998).
  
• MISSISSIPPI:
  Miss. Code Ann.§ 41-29-501 to -537 (2000): It is generally a violation of Mississippi law to intercept and acquire the contents of wire, oral or other communications with a mechanical or electronic device. The law against interception of communications applies neither to a "subscriber" to a telephone who "intercepts a communication on a telephone to which he subscribes," nor to members of the subscriber's household. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-535 (2000).
  
  Violations can be punished as misdemeanors carrying the potential for imprisonment for up to one year and fines of up to $10,000. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-533 (2000). It is a felony, however, for anyone who is not a law enforcement officer to disclose the contents of intercepted communications for any reason other than testifying under oath in a governmental or court proceeding, and the penalty for such disclosure can be up to five years imprisonment and up to $10,000 in fines. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-511, 529 (2000). Civil liability for an unlawful interception is expressly authorized for actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000 -- whichever is greater -- along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-529 (2000).
  
  In addition, the law specifically provides that if a person is a party to a communication, or has obtained consent from any one of the parties, no civil liability can be imposed unless the interception was accompanied by a criminal or tortious intent. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-531 (2000). According to current legislation, the laws in place regarding the interception of wire and oral communications are set to be repealed on July 1, 2000. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-537 (2000).
  
  Also, the contents of cellular telephone communications are unlawfully obtained when access is gained by a person who is not the intended recipient, or is not authorized to have access to the transmission. The possible penalties for unlawfully obtaining access to cellular communications are imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to $1,000. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-25-49 (2000).
  
  

The remaining states are here:

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html

[Technical Support]

The following was posted by Michael Harris:

Try this link - http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

---

The following states ALLOW you to record the other party you are speaking with without their knowledge:

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CO

DE

D.C.

GA

HI

ID

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MN

MS

NE

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WV

WI

WY

SOURCE LINK: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html

[May K. Toney]

Thank you Legal Affairs and Tech Support. My IPIU files are full but I'll be back to capture this info for future use. What a wealth of information! I learned a lot. Thanks again.

[Michele Maconship]

Thanks again for some great information. Sounds like the taping laws are quite complex and not something I want to get mixed up in.

Quote - "Best bet- instead of recording, do something that is permissible and admissible in court: have a third party (of your choosing) listen in on the conversation and write it all down. This can then be turned in to a "witness statement". It helps to have the third party do the phone dialing, too, and include this fact in the statement.

John Grogan/Los Angeles (818) 883-6969 (we do latent fingerprinting and other assignments for other PIs throughout California)"

I plan to add this to the extensive volume of information I have gathered from IPIU.

[Mr Jose Bonavich Jr]

Thank you so much for the information. This is something I'm definately going to print off for future reference.

[Michael Harris]

Originally posted by Technical Support
The following states ALLOW you to record the other party you are speaking with without their knowledge:


NJ

SOURCE LINK: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html

Thanks for the great link. I checked it out and found that I have been legal all along.

[Jerry Woytas]

Thanks to you guys in Legal Affairs & Technical Support. I have copied this information and will post it so that I can refer back to it often.

Fantastic job.

JeryLyn

[David Wayne Cash]

Thanks so much for the information. I received a question about this subject the other day. Here is the scenario:

I may not have the whole story, certainly only have one side. A tax preparer told me that had requested a phone number be disconnected because they were taking their business independent from a franchise company. They had requested the phone company disconnect the phone line owned by the franchise company.

I was told there were delays in getting the phone number disconnected. One day without thinking the phone is answered. The gentlemen on the phone was asking for someone to help him prepare his taxes. He was directed to contact the franchise company at another location because they no longer worked for the franchise company.

As it was described to me, the gentlemen on the phone was quite persistent in trying to get the employee to help him with his taxes. Almost to the point of possible entrapment. The employee did not agree to help the caller and continued to direct him elsewhere.

Later the independent company was contacted by a law firm and was told a private investigator had taped their conversation. Apparently the issue is with the phone not being disconnected.

The question to me ... "Was the P.I. lawful when recording that conversation?" We are in Tennessee.

Any thoughts?

[Dabra J Grant]

Excellent information, and quite thorough. Thank you so much. I have also bookmarked, plus synchronized this info so it is available offline as well. Saved as a Word Document file for future reference/printing, by first changing it into the printable version. You can never have enough back up. Thank you.

The amount of study material, research, and reading available is incredible to me as a new member. Each day I learn more and become more aware of how much I have to learn here and beyond. IPIU is a wonderfull starting point. I'm pleased to have arrived here.

There is no way to rush through this. I have found there are many links to info and much info imbedded throughout. If you are new too, take your time, and put on your thinking cap!

Dabra J Grant,
New Recruit
Washington State

[Barbara Compton]

Wow! Thank you all for your input on this subject. It was really informative!


Barbara

[Steven Featherstone]

MICHIGAN:
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c (1999): A private conversation cannot legally be overheard or recorded without the consent of all participants. Illegal eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000.

In addition, any individual who divulges information he knows, or reasonably should know, was obtained through illegal eavesdropping is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539e (1999). Civil liability for actual and punitive damages also are sanctioned. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h (1999).

The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as only applying to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties. Black v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

The state Supreme Court, however, stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a conversation "may not unilaterally nullify other participants' expectations of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation" and that the overriding inquiry should be whether the parties "intended and reasonably expected that the conversation was private." Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108, (Mich. 1999).




Well, I see Michigan is one of the few states where this is illegal. Im glad this was posted, thanks for the info.

[Eloisa Mooney]

This thread was a wealth of information. Knowning laws change, I will keep tabs on this site and keep my ears to the ground if I ever have an assignment that requires taping or recording.

Thank you.

This is very good information to have at hand, It should keep alot of us out of trouble!

[Julie Mercer -]

[QUOTE=Technical Support]SOURCE LINK: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html

Thanks for the link! It is now in my Favorites.

Julie Mercer

[Mark Dehe]

How about messages on an answering machine? In the past I've had harrassing messages left on my answering machine and I've transferred the recordings to cassette tapes just in case. My interpretation of the law is that essentially, I cannot record a telephone conversation in the state of California without letting the other person know. However, if he or she leaves messages on my machine, then obviously it is understood that they are being recorded and this information can then be used in a court of law. Is this correct? Thanks.

[Michael Harris]

Mark,

Try this link - http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

You may have to click on the California link to get what you need.

Eavesdropping upon or recording a conversation, whether by telephone (including cordless or cellular telephone) or in person, that a person would reasonably expect to be confined to the parties present, carries the same penalty as intercepting telephone or wire communications.

As I read this, there is no expectation of privacy on an answering machine.

[Mark Dehe]

Michael,
That site had a wealth of information in it. Thanks for your help; very much appreciated.

[Michael Harris]

Mark,

I do not even know where I found that site. I believe in passing out the good information.

So many IPIU members helped me, so I am continuing their work. Now it is your turn to pass on the neat stuff you find.

[Julie Mercer -]

Originally Posted by Mark Dehe

How about messages on an answering machine? In the past I've had harrassing messages left on my answering machine and I've transferred the recordings to cassette tapes just in case. My interpretation of the law is that essentially, I cannot record a telephone conversation in the state of California without letting the other person know. However, if he or she leaves messages on my machine, then obviously it is understood that they are being recorded and this information can then be used in a court of law. Is this correct? Thanks.

Mark,
I do not have an answer to you question, but that is an excellent point!
Julie Mercer

[Wendy Brown]

Michael,

Thanks for the excellent link on taping laws. I found it very informative and decided to add it to my 'favorites' file for future reference.

Thanks again!

Wendy

[Michael Harris]

Wendy,

Thank you. I am glad it is helpful. I am sorry to say that I do not remember who gave me the link.

[Roxann Wurst]

This is an important issue. Two wrongs don't make a right. It would be terribly frustrating to get information and then not be able to use it. Knowing the laws of your state (as well as the federal regs) are critical to our success.

[Michael Harris]

Roxann,

If you think the taping and tapping laws are tough, wait until you get to photographs and video images - If you get a shot of a foyer while a door is open, you could lose everything.

[Barbara Sullivan]

Jeff Boas,
Your statement about education is what you get from reading the small print and experience is what you get when you don't (read the small print) is oh so true. I appreciate all of the input from everyone. I have also save this information. It will prove valuable down the road!

[Brenda Black]

I've added the website to my favorites. You guys are a wealth of information.

Thanks
Brenda Black

[Ada Baciu]

I checked out the website and it is great. I am learning so much from IPIU and soon I am going to burn some useless files in my brain to make room for more information.

[Bozica N Newell]

Some interesting info thanks for the link very informative and it is good to know the statutes as well for each states and general laws on this issue, thank you again !

[Antonia White]

WOW! This is some great information. Thanks Tech Support! Learned alot of information!

[Terri Young]

Everyone!! Thanks for the great information. I have learned a lot.