• 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.

face to face tape recording

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

B

bluebird395

Guest
What is the name of your state? CT

I have read the post that state under most circumstances, it is unlawful in CT to tape record someone without their consent during a face to face conversation.

What are the circumstances in which it is legal to tape record a person in a face to face conversation without their permission?
 


M

Mike101

Guest
You can record in face to face situations. Its no different from what the police do when they wire someone up for undercover work.
And sorry about your other post. Misread your question.
 
It is ALWAYS legal to either audio or video tape a face to face conversation if both parties consent. It is legal in SOME states if only one party consents.

And Mike101, it is not in any way shape or form the same as what police do in an undercover investigation. I will assume that you made that statement in the context of sarcasm. Otherwise, the depth of the stupidity of that statement would make me wonder who turns on the computer for you, because you obviously do not possess enough intelligence for that task on your own.
 
M

Mike101

Guest
If an officer wires up a subject to record the conversation they are going to have with another person I don't see where that is any different from a regular person wiring themselves up to record a conversation.
Where would the difference be?
 

stephenk

Senior Member
the difference is that when the police wire up a person, that person is now acting as an agent for the state in a criminal investigation. different rules apply for the police and for the regular folks.
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
My response:

Also, a recording, such as our writer asks about, is also controlled by the location of where the recording is being made. A determination of a recording's legal viability would certainly rest upon a person's "expectation of privacy," e.g., was the recording made in a public setting like at a park, or in a private area like a bedroom, or an office.

The Federal eavesdropping statute (18 USCA §§ 2510-2520, above) prohibits the admission in evidence of such communications and depends on whether the participants had a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Confidentiality is determined by an objective standard - - i.e., whether the complaining party had a reasonable expectation of privacy, not whether the party subjectively thought the communication was confidential. [People v. Wyrick (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 903, 909, 144 Cal.Rptr. 38, 42; O'Laskey v. Sortino (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 241, 247, 273 Cal.Rptr. 674, 677; Simtel Communications v. NBC, Inc., supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at 1080, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d at 337]

As another example, a conversation is "confidential" within the meaning of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Ca Penal § 632) "if a party to that conversation has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being recorded or overheard." [Flanagan v. Flanagan (2002) 27 Cal.4th 766, 768, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 574, 575 (emphasis added) - - immaterial that the content of the conversation is expected to be communicated to a third party]

IAAL
 
Last edited:
M

Mike101

Guest
What law states that it is different for law enforcement?
The way I read it to be, they are eavesdropping laws. A third party cannot record the conversation without consent of both parties. If you are having a conversation with another person you are not eavesdropping.
Most states don't clearly define that. I believe Flordia does.
 
H

hmmbrdzz

Guest
OK.... this is what I know about tape recordings. My attorney, many many years ago, (in NC) advised me to tape record an individual in my home and/or to do so over the phone if this individual called. My attorney told me to put the recorder in my pocket and/or record the conversation with the phone device. The reason he wanted to do this was because it was believed this individual was going to turn into a hostile witness in legal proceedings, and my attorney advised that -- while the conversation itself may not be able to be used in court, that it was "legal" to do so (without this individual's knowledge) and that any evidence from the recording that could discredit his testimony at a later date would be imperative to have for deposition purposes.

My ex is a policeman in Florida who is now beginning to work some undercover narcotics and with surveillance, and years ago when all this stuff was going on with me (and my attorney was advising me to "tape record") he told me about the same thing that Mike 101 has said here. I communicate with him by e-mail frequently, so maybe I'll ask him in my next e-mail what info he may be able to provide me regards this question.


hmmbrdzz
 
Last edited:
H

hgrego1015

Guest
Mike 101:

Its all about the lawful performance of their duties. That is the differance.
 
M

Mike101

Guest
I understand the lawful performance of their duties but if it is legal to do in the first place that won't matter. They don't need the badge to commit a lawful act.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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