taping phone conversations with out consent in Mississippi

[Latch]

What is the name of your state? Mississippi
CAn my spose tape a phone conversation betwween me and someone else without our knowledge and use it in court? neither one of us gave consent and he was not involved in the conversation

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? Mississippi
CAn my spose tape a phone conversation betwween me and someone else without our knowledge and use it in court? neither one of us gave consent and he was not involved in the conversation

No and no.

 

[JETX]

What is the name of your state? Mississippi
CAn my spose tape a phone conversation betwween me and someone else without our knowledge and use it in court? neither one of us gave consent and he was not involved in the conversation

The CORRECT answer is yes and yes.

Miss. Code Ann. §§ 41-29-501 to -537: 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, Wright v. Stanley, 700 So.2d 274 (Miss. 1997) (state law prohibition on wiretapping did not apply to former wife who intercepted communications on her own telephone).
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/mississippi.html

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Only IF the action was performed in the marital home, which is not stated in the original post.

 

[JETX]

Only IF the action was performed in the marital home, which is not stated in the original post.

And what, praytell, gives you ANY indication that this didn't happen in the home of the 'subscriber'???
The more likely scenario is that the writers husband overheard (and recorded?) a conversation between her and her 'boyfriend'.
She used the word 'spouse', present tense.

Further, for your post to have been accurate, you would have had to make that 'non-marital home' statement. You didn't..... so your "No and no" response was NOT correct.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

And what, praytell, gives you ANY indication that this didn't happen in the home of the 'subscriber'???
The more likely scenario is that the writers husband overheard (and recorded?) a conversation between her and her 'boyfriend'.
She used the word 'spouse', present tense.

Further, for your post to have been accurate, you would have had to make that 'non-marital home' statement. You didn't..... so your "No and no" response was NOT correct.

And What, praytell, gives you ANY indication that this DID happen in the marital home of the subscriber and that the subscriber was, at the time of the incident, domiciled in the home???

Which would mean you were correct...EXCEPT in the face of Lee v. Lee, 798 So. 2d 1284 (Miss. 2001). A 'SPOUSE' who is not 'domiciled' in the marital home, even if the subscriber, has not the same legal protection as if the marriage was intakt and the 'subscriber' was still living in the marital home.

 

[Latch]

thanks for the advaice all
one other question then , does anythign done on the phone count as cheating, and if it does how would this effect the dis, would it jsut effect allomony or child cust. as well?
Latch

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Until you come back and answer the relevant question on the table, no more help.

So, specifically, were you and the spouse living together in the marital home at the time of the recording?

 

[Latch]

yes we were living together in the smae house at the time

 

[BelizeBreeze]

yes we were living together in the smae house at the time

Then Jet's answer to you would be correct. Any other determination as to grounds would be a question of fact for a judge to determine.

 

[JETX]

And What, praytell, gives you ANY indication that this DID happen in the marital home of the subscriber and that the subscriber was, at the time of the incident, domiciled in the home???

As I said, she used the term 'spouse', present tense. She didn't say ex-spouse, or soon to be, or any other term that would imply other than the FACT that her husband overheard her talking on the phone...... to her boyfriend.
So, we are back again to:
"And what, praytell, gives you ANY indication that this didn't happen in the home of the 'subscriber'???"

Which would mean you were correct...EXCEPT in the face of Lee v. Lee, 798 So. 2d 1284 (Miss. 2001). A 'SPOUSE' who is not 'domiciled' in the marital home, even if the subscriber, has not the same legal protection as if the marriage was intakt and the 'subscriber' was still living in the marital home.

And what, praytell, in that ruling has anything to do with the phone and recording???
C'mon... exercise some of that legal 'muscle' and not make invalid or unlikely assumptions. If not, we will have to change your name to 'leaps to assumptions not in evidence'.
Oh sorry, 'rmet' already has that name!!

 

[JETX]

yes we were living together in the smae house at the time

And is it correct that the issue is your husband overheard and/or recorded a conversation between you and your 'boyfriend'??

 

[BelizeBreeze]

¶37. Belinda alleged and Jason admitted to wiretapping the telephone at the couples marital domicile and recording conversations with his ex-wife as a party. Under Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-535 (1993), "a person who is a subscriber to a telephone operated by a communication common carrier and who intercepts a communication on a telephone to which he subscribes" is allowed to tap that telephone.

Furthermore, Wright v. Stanley , 700 So. 2d 174 (Miss. 1997) supports the notion that tapping and recording conversations on one's own phone is a legal undertaking.

In the present case, there is no question that Jason is the "subscriber" (his name appeared on the bills) of the phone at the marital domicile. What makes the present situation troubling is that, at least for a portion of the time in question, Belinda had been awarded exclusive use and possession of the marital domicile.

In fact, Jason was forced to tap the phone lines outside of the house because he had no right to enter the dwelling. While we feel the recording of private telephone conversations is reprehensible, there is nothing illegal about recording those conversations when the couple was sharing the abode. "t is permissible to record what one could just as easily hear by picking up an extension phone." Wright , 700 So. 2d at 279.

However, Jason's actions after Belinda was given exclusive use of the house may be actionable, as he was no longer permitted to "pick up an extension phone."

As to the term 'SPOUSE', simply using the term does not preclue the fact that spouses can separate and live apart and yet still be married.

Assumptions work both ways Nitrous breath

 

[Latch]

yes he taped a conversation between me and my boyfirend we are getting disvoired adn if he can use this in counrt my question is how will it effect the children being award, i love my kids and want them with me, i dont care about allomoney at all jsut the children and keeping them with me
Latch

 

[JETX]

Bottom line... I was right and you were wrong!!! Nanie, nanie!!!