• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Secret Recordings

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Mortallis288

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

I have done some research and found that a couple websites say that two party secret recording is ok. (without both peoples consent if you are face to face is the way i interrupt that). Can someone verify this?
 


Ohiogal

Queen Bee
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

I have done some research and found that a couple websites say that two party secret recording is ok. (without both peoples consent if you are face to face is the way i interrupt that). Can someone verify this?
Nope. You cannot record someone else's conversation without a warrant. Some states require two party consent and other states require one party consent.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Not to get too technical, but the real person deciding is a lesser-ranked person who was put in a position of trust to help determine such things in order to prevent Americans from being murdered.

Then, either before or within a certain statutory amount of time thereafter, they get a warrant from a special court.

If the call is overseas, the recording can and is done by every country which has the technical capability. England, France, Russia, Sweeden, Canada, Venezuela, all the countries from the left to the right.

You should look at the laws of Great Britian sometime if you really want to see intrusion.

But, then, that's just being technical.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Not to get too technical, but the real person deciding is a lesser-ranked person who was put in a position of trust to help determine such things in order to prevent Americans from being murdered.

Then, either before or within a certain statutory amount of time thereafter, they get a warrant from a special court.

If the call is overseas, the recording can and is done by every country which has the technical capability. England, France, Russia, Sweeden, Canada, Venezuela, all the countries from the left to the right.

You should look at the laws of Great Britian sometime if you really want to see intrusion.

But, then, that's just being technical.

But we are none of those countries and our Constitution has certain protections. If we want to be Canada make sure we also have the low numbers of murders, the medicine for everyone without ability to pay, and all the other benefits to go with the intrusion.
 
Here's what I found...

Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.

As far as warrantless wiretaps for suspected terrorists, muderers, child molesters....and cheating spouses...thats a tough call....why don't we put it to a vote?....that's part of the Constitution too isn't it?
 
Last edited:

mistoffolees

Senior Member
Here's what I found...

Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.
I don't know the rules, but my attorney also told me that under no circumstances should I record my daughter on the phone - even if I was a party to the conversation (mine is a one-party consent state). I don't know why the rules are different for kids, but they apparently are.

As far as warrantless wiretaps for suspected terrorists, muderers, child molesters....and cheating spouses...thats a tough call....why don't we put it to a vote?....that's part of the Constitution too isn't it?
Actually, no. A vote does not allow you to override the constitution. That requires a long series of actions, only some of which are voted on by the public. As long as the constitution reads the way it does, it's illegal, no matter how many people vote otherwise.

Furthermore, I think the biggest complaints don't have to do with wiretaps for 'suspected terrorists, murderers, etc'. Rather, the objections are that the current administration believes it can wiretap without restrictions in the mere hope that they might stumble across something.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
And, the Constitution says what about wiretapping?

Wait, I have it. There it is in the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
My understanding is that Congress has passed a regulation scheme of the wiretaps and the President has signed it. The President has enforced it in a certain manner which has been challenged in the courts. (Most recently the 9th Circuit.) Where the government has won and the Supreme court did not grant Certiorari. Hmm...sounds reasonable to me. Congress, the President and the Courts all deciding the same way all the other countries of the world do things. (Except we are a little more restrictive.)

Where does your definition of reasonable come from? Or, is there another part of the Constitution I'm missing? The double secret probation wiretap codicil perhaps?
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
And, the Constitution says what about wiretapping?

Wait, I have it. There it is in the fourth amendment:

My understanding is that Congress has passed a regulation scheme of the wiretaps and the President has signed it. The President has enforced it in a certain manner which has been challenged in the courts. (Most recently the 9th Circuit.) Where the government has won and the Supreme court did not grant Certiorari. Hmm...sounds reasonable to me. Congress, the President and the Courts all deciding the same way all the other countries of the world do things. (Except we are a little more restrictive.)

Where does your definition of reasonable come from? Or, is there another part of the Constitution I'm missing? The double secret probation wiretap codicil perhaps?
The Constitution requires probable cause. Congress passed, and the President signed, a law saying that the government could obtain permission to wiretap without probable cause (basically, with even a mild suspicion). The fourth amendment doesn't have a gray area at all - it specifically states that probable cause is required, so I believe the courts messed up in allowing it. I also expect that reason will return some day, I just don't know when.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
No. Read the fourth amendment again. Unreasonable.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a civil libertarian who am appalled at where this country is going. However, I am uncertain to the outrage over something which does not (at this time) negatively affect me in any way, while thousands are stopped on the way home from dinner at a check point to protect us from drunk drivers even though there is no evidence as to their success beyond overtime to the officers and revenue to the city for lapsed registration stickers.

By focusing on Bush being evil in some way, we let slip the myriad infringments on our liberties every day with no complaint. Real infringement which actually matters to people and their lives. Read fourth amendment cases and be appalled at what the courts find "reasonable". I just think it is unfair to target a person who seems to actually believe a (well supported by legislature and courts) process to help Americans keep from getting murdered by groups who openly express their desire to do so, for some political joke. Say what you want about Bush. Dunce, in the pocket of big oil, or whatever. I think his motives are genuine and have helped keep this country from another devestating attack since 9/11.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
No. Read the fourth amendment again. Unreasonable.
Maybe you should read it again. There are two clauses, separated by 'and' which means that BOTH conditions must be met. 'Unreasonable' is in the first. The second statement is "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" which means that even if something isn't unreasonable, no warrant shall issue without probable cause. This is clearly being violated.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a civil libertarian who am appalled at where this country is going. However, I am uncertain to the outrage over something which does not (at this time) negatively affect me in any way, while thousands are stopped on the way home from dinner at a check point to protect us from drunk drivers even though there is no evidence as to their success beyond overtime to the officers and revenue to the city for lapsed registration stickers.

By focusing on Bush being evil in some way, we let slip the myriad infringments on our liberties every day with no complaint. Real infringement which actually matters to people and their lives. Read fourth amendment cases and be appalled at what the courts find "reasonable". I just think it is unfair to target a person who seems to actually believe a (well supported by legislature and courts) process to help Americans keep from getting murdered by groups who openly express their desire to do so, for some political joke. Say what you want about Bush. Dunce, in the pocket of big oil, or whatever. I think his motives are genuine and have helped keep this country from another devestating attack since 9/11.
I don't target one person. The entire administration ignores the Constituation. The Clinton administration did, as well, although to a lesser extent. For at least 20 years, we've had one administration after another which fells that it's above the law.

If we don't start taking the Constitution seriously, we might as well scrap it and not even pretend that individuals have any rights. Frankly, I think we've done far more harm to ourselves than the terrorists did - we've given up our freedom willingly.

And I don't really believe Bush had anything to do with the lack of attacks since 9/11. There's no evidence that there would have been another attack even if he had done nothing. We've certainly polarized the world and made a much larger portion of the Muslim population worldwide believe that coexistence is impossible. I fail to see how that makes us safer.
 
And I don't really believe Bush had anything to do with the lack of attacks since 9/11. There's no evidence that there would have been another attack even if he had done nothing. We've certainly polarized the world and made a much larger portion of the Muslim population worldwide believe that coexistence is impossible. I fail to see how that makes us safer.
Your joking right? The Jihadists and Wahabis have sworn to destroy Israel and it's corrupt Western Allies through any dastardly means possible...and you wouldn't do anything to stop them? In Mosques all around the world Imams have been openly preaching hate and glory to those who sacrifice themselves to kill us....and you say WE have polarized the world and made coexistence impossible? The irony is...it's the civil liberties, freedoms, culture and life style that you and I hold so dearly that the Islamic fundamentalists hate the most. So hearing you complain about the slim chance that you might have your conversation recorded...while there are people out there who can't wait to cut your head off is very interesting...because I don't see how that makes us any safer either.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Maybe you should read it again. There are two clauses, separated by 'and' which means that BOTH conditions must be met. 'Unreasonable' is in the first. The second statement is "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" which means that even if something isn't unreasonable, no warrant shall issue without probable cause. This is clearly being violated.
Interesting argument. Perhaps you should review case law. The plain meaning of the words in the fourth amendment have been decimated long ago by myriad court decisions. Use my example for instance. We know random checkpoint stops to check for DUI are legal. They happen all the time. Where is your "and" now?
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
Your joking right? The Jihadists and Wahabis have sworn to destroy Israel and it's corrupt Western Allies through any dastardly means possible...and you wouldn't do anything to stop them? In Mosques all around the world Imams have been openly preaching hate and glory to those who sacrifice themselves to kill us....and you say WE have polarized the world and made coexistence impossible? The irony is...it's the civil liberties, freedoms, culture and life style that you and I hold so dearly that the Islamic fundamentalists hate the most. So hearing you complain about the slim chance that you might have your conversation recorded...while there are people out there who can't wait to cut your head off is very interesting...because I don't see how that makes us any safer either.
Those people have been sworn to destroy Israel for decades. What we've done is created an environment where it's easier for them to recruit more terrorists and collect money. My statement was that there's no evidence that an attack would have occurred even if Bush had done nothing after 9/11. You still haven't provided anything.

I just happen to believe that our liberty is important enough to not give it up on the basis of extremists on either side. If our liberty is important, you don't win by giving up your liberties every time you get scared. The Muslim world was (as a whole) relatively peaceful and on its way to slowly picking up Western ways - until we forced them back into extremist mode. Instead of 0.1% of Muslims hating the west, we've now given them ammunition so that 20% hate the West (or whatever the numbers are).

It all comes down to long term vs. short term objectives. If your objective is to build a safer, more positive world, assimilation makes more sense. If your objective is to create a divided, hate-filled world where you can justify military action all over the world and you want to further entrench and strengthen your enemies, we're on the right track.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top