Qualification of law

What is the name of your state? Massachusettes

We don't want someone's misinterpretation of the law to remain posted here do we?

Ozark you are incorrect in your assertion that an idividual can be charged for recording sounds that make their way to his backyard, particularly where the neighbor had notice that recording equipment was in use.

USC Title 18, Part 1. Chapter 119: Section 2511
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

The definition of “oral communication” as used in United States Code Title 18, Part 1. Chapter 119: Section 2511, is as follows:

(2) “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication;

An individual speaking in a loud voice outside of his home certainly has no expectation that his voice won’t be heard or “intercepted” by others. Even if he DID have such expectation, it would be destroyed by notice of the presence of recording equipment.

The next time you offer definitions, please find all of those that are pertinent to the discussion.

As I have said over, and over, and over. The law prohibits recording ONLY when it is done secretly.

On their own property. They want to situate the recording device to record conversations on their neighbor's property. The neighbor and his guests have "an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." The circumstance that justifies their expectation is they are on their own property.

I agree with Quaere, but Ozark_Sophist points out the problem. What is the reasonable expectation? I can set up microphones on my property to pick up virtually *any* sound waves which enter. Sensitive microphones are cheap these days. With a shareware program to clean up the signal, I could hear the conversation of a neighbor to a level they would never expect.

When Quaere writes,

An individual speaking in a loud voice outside of his home certainly has no expectation that his voice won’t be heard or “intercepted” by others. Even if he DID have such expectation, it would be destroyed by notice of the presence of recording equipment.

Click to expand...

What is a "loud" voice? Why limit it to outside the house? If a person spoke loudly inside the house, but there was notice of recording equipment, why would that have protection? To me, it is the level which reaches the neighboring property which should be the guideline, inside or out.

This is the problem. While I think Quaere is correct in his argument, I believe a party could reasonably make a counter-argument depending on the specific facts and interpretations of those facts. Defending yourself from criminal or civil sanctions can be expensive. That's a tough call when things can be so close.

I think the person with the audio recording would have to prove the conversation took place on their own property, otherwise any use or distribution of the recording would be illegal. A reasonable person would not consent to have his or her conversation recorded by a neighbor while on their own property, regardless how many signs are on the recording party's property. I can't post my property and then use set a directional mike to intercept the conversation of a neighbor 1/4 mile a way.

I think the person with the audio recording would have to prove the conversation took place on their own property, otherwise any use or distribution of the recording would be illegal.

Click to expand...

No. Who's property is not relevant except for the facutal finding of the expectation of keeping the communication private. Speaking to another on your own property makes it more likely and on another's property makes it less likely. Unless we have case law on what specific criteria would include or exclude conversations from an expectation of privacy, we're just guessing at what a jury might say.

tranquility said:

No. Who's property is not relevant except for the facutal finding of the expectation of keeping the communication private. Speaking to another on your own property makes it more likely and on another's property makes it less likely. Unless we have case law on what specific criteria would include or exclude conversations from an expectation of privacy, we're just guessing at what a jury might say.

Click to expand...

Hence, "I think." But if the recording was of a conservation between the neighbor and a guest on the neighbor's property (while on said neighbor's property), neither gave consent, implied or explicit, to be recorded--which would be a violation of state law.

Quaere,

if you have a problem with Ozark you need to either take it to PM or address it with the administrator. It is in SERIOUSLY poor taste to create a thread merely to "call out" another member here.

And that is exactly what this thread is, merely a calling out.

FF I don't have a problem with OS or anyone else here. I don't pay attention to the name of the individual that posts a particular opinion. I only look at the name long enough to direct my answer or comments to them.

I’ve only taken specific notice of a few posters here and OS is not one of them.

In other words, there is no personal motivation for any argument I pursue with another poster.

I DO however, have a problem with a thread that devolves into personal attacks on the OP just because he questions the accuracy of someone’s answer. I have a problem with non-responsive answers that do nothing but confuse the OP. MOST of all, I have a problem with leaving incorrect information about a matter of law, on a forum that is viewed by thousands of people.

I have no interest in communicating with OS privately or in writing to the moderator (about what?). I don't see how taking the legal discussion OUT of the public view, serves anyone.

This particular thread deviated from the original point with post #2. OP has never indicated a desire to record audio that is contained to the neighbor’s yard. He is strictly interested in capturing the sounds that make their way to HIS yard. He has not asked us to tell him how to pick up ONLY that which is heard from HIS property and he is well aware that any recording must be restricted to what is heard on his OWN property. Nor has he asked about the legal use or distribution of any such recording.

I don't know what to say about your "poor taste" comment. You are clearly entitled to your opinion.

Quaere said:

FF I don't have a problem with OS or anyone else here. I don't pay attention to the name of the individual that posts a particular opinion. I only look at the name long enough to direct my answer or comments to them.

I’ve only taken specific notice of a few posters here and OS is not one of them.

In other words, there is no personal motivation for any argument I pursue with another poster.

I DO however, have a problem with a thread that devolves into personal attacks on the OP just because he questions the accuracy of someone’s answer. I have a problem with non-responsive answers that do nothing but confuse the OP. MOST of all, I have a problem with leaving incorrect information about a matter of law, on a forum that is viewed by thousands of people.

I have no interest in communicating with OS privately or in writing to the moderator (about what?). I don't see how taking the legal discussion OUT of the public view, serves anyone.

This particular thread deviated from the original point with post #2. OP has never indicated a desire to record audio that is contained to the neighbor’s yard. He is strictly interested in capturing the sounds that make their way to HIS yard. He has not asked us to tell him how to pick up ONLY that which is heard from HIS property and he is well aware that any recording must be restricted to what is heard on his OWN property. Nor has he asked about the legal use or distribution of any such recording.

I don't know what to say about your "poor taste" comment. You are clearly entitled to your opinion.

Click to expand...

Queare...I am telling you that he runs the potential of being criminally charged if he places an audio recorder on his property...He will never be able to get the consent or be certain that EVERYONE that may be picked up by his equipment has knowledge that they are being recorded.
IMO you are the one confusing the issue. A family member of mine is a Detective in a Massachusetts city. I spoke with him regarding this...He said he would arrest this guy if he was presented with the audio. The arrest may not lead to prison time but OP would STILL have to spend a lot of money defending himself on the charge.

I am telling you that he runs the potential of being criminally charged if he places an audio recorder on his property

Click to expand...

You do understand that the statute turns on the issue of secretly recording someone right? If someone has been notified that it is my practice to record the sounds that can be heard from MY property, I am not secretly recording them am I?

He will never be able to get the consent

Click to expand...

There is no mention of consent in the statute. The reason there is no mention of consent is that people can’t consent unless they have KNOWLEDGE.
If there is KNOWLEDGE, there is no SECRET and if there is no SECRET there has been no INTERCEPTION. The Mass. Statute prohibits INTERCEPTION.

The statute does NOT prohibit making a record of the sounds of your own yard.
OP will have to be very careful to avoid any suggestion that his equipment had a greater range than that of a human standing in his yard.

Cops do not make the best persuasive legal authority. Go to the statute and FIND THE PARAGRAPH, that prohibits OPENLY recording on your own property. Come back and cite it and then, you will have something to stand on.

Though I don’t expect you to read or acknowledge the truth of the following, I am going to provide the short lesson for you anyway:

You have to read a statute with reason and common sense. You can’t do that if you haven’t even read the preamble, which gives a synopsis of the purpose of the statute. In plain English, the statute in question is intended to address two things:

1. The circumstances under which law enforcement is permitted to use secret recording devices.
2. Prohibition of SECRET recording (and ONLY secret recording) by private individuals.

Next, to understand a statute, you have to read it with the “principals of statutory construction” in mind. In this case, the following principal (as explained by Mass.) applies:

“...legislative intent should be ascertained from the "ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered in connection with the cause of its enactment, the mischief or imperfection to be remedied and the main object to be accomplished . . . ." Board of Education v. Assessor of Worcester, 368 Mass. 511, 513 (1975) (citations omitted). 560 C.M.R. § 2.06(l)(f)(emphasis added).

In other words, the Mass. statute is designed to prevent invasion of privacy by secret recording. There is no invasion of privacy where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. When someone has been NOTIFIED of recording equipment in operation, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Quaere said:

In other words, the Mass. statute is designed to prevent invasion of privacy by secret recording. There is no invasion of privacy where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. When someone has been NOTIFIED of recording equipment in operation, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Click to expand...

I agree with the above analysis.

MrsIron - Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , § 99: 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.

Click to expand...

This is from the first day the OP posted his question. Posting a sign on one property does not make recording conversations on an adjacent property consentual.

In other words, the Mass. statute is designed to prevent invasion of privacy by secret recording. There is no invasion of privacy where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. When someone has been NOTIFIED of recording equipment in operation, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in that particular statute about secret recording or reasonable expectation of privacy. It states consent by all parties.

MrsIron - Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , § 99: 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.

Click to expand...

It is not a good idea to take posts on an Internet forum as legal authority. That is the point of my user name.

Msiron’s post creates the appearance that the above words appear in the statute. If you actually read the statute, you would know that the two sentences above are not in it.

Quaere previously wrote:
In other words, the Mass. statute is designed to prevent invasion of privacy by secret recording. There is no invasion of privacy where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. When someone has been NOTIFIED of recording equipment in operation, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Ozark--There is nothing in that particular statute about secret recording or reasonable expectation of privacy. It states consent by all parties.

Click to expand...

The quote you are arguing against was prefaced with "In other words". That is how you know the sentences that follow are not direct quotes from the statute, they are my interpretation of M.G.L. Chapter 272: Section 99, followed by statements that pertain to invasion of privacy claims.

“Secret” appears in the statute eleven times, because the statute defines “interception” in part, as secretly recording or secretly hearing something.

The word “interception” (which means secret hearing or recording in the context of the statute) appears forty-nine times.

The word “consent” never appears in the statute.

I have given all of this information several times now. If you are reading my posts at all, evidently don’t understand them. If you are not reading or don't understand, maybe you shouldn't be insisting I am wrong. Please read the statute for yourself.

Quaere -
I cannot believe you are still at this. I think the best way to end these threads is to let the bloomin' idiot stick a recording device in his yard and see how soon he gets arrested. Then you can defend him using USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 119: Section 2511

You SHOULD be looking at the General Laws of Massachusetts, Part IV. Crimes and Punishments, Title 1 Chapter 272: Section 99. Interception of wire and oral communications, as was quoted in the original post 3 different times.

Check out and read carefully the Preamble (A), Definitions 1, 4, and especially 6 (B), Offenses 1, 3, 5 and 6 (C), and Civil Remedy (Q).

If you want, I will cut and paste the whole damn thing for you right here.

I think the best way to end these threads is to let the bloomin' idiot stick

Click to expand...

What has the OP done to warrant the name calling? I haven’t seen him do anything but ask a legal question.

You SHOULD be looking at the General Laws of Massachusetts, Part IV. Crimes and Punishments, Title 1 Chapter 272: Section 99. Interception of wire and oral communications,

Click to expand...

I’m starting to wonder if some people here have a reading comprehension problem. Quincy, what statute do you think I have been referring to throughout these three threads?

Check out and read carefully the Preamble (A), Definitions 1, 4, and especially 6 (B), Offenses 1, 3, 5 and 6 (C), and Civil Remedy (Q).

Click to expand...

I have repeatedly pointed out that the paragraphs you now refer me to, only prohibit SECRET recording. I don’t mind debating a point of law with you but I read your posts carefully and then try to verify your position. I don’t think you are showing me the same courtesy. How can you tell me I’m wrong if you don’t even know what I’ve said?