recording conversations

[rv684]

What is the name of your state? Nebraska

I tried looking this up, and all I seem to be able to find is that Nebraska is a one party consent state as far as I can tell. I would like an answer in easy to understand terms, I'm not as smart as I used to be, as to what exactly that means and how I can use it.

Is it legal to record conversations as long as I am part of the conversation, either for personal or legal use, without notifying the other person, all in the same state? Either on the phone or in person. Let's say, general conversation, or verbal contracts and agreements. Thank you for the time.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

yes, no and maybe.

Now, would you like to explain why you want to do this and under what circumstances?

 

[rv684]

re

Just in general use. I'll try to give examples.

1. If I go to a meeting and wish to record the speaker

2. If I sell something to someone, agree on a price, they come back later with the money and deny offering me that much (to remind them), or payment terms, time etc.

3. Buying a used car, what the salesman or private party says (or the reverse of 2 perhaps?)

Circumstances like that, few others in everyday life, just general use, either on phone or in person. Hope the examples are good enough.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Just in general use. I'll try to give examples.

1. If I go to a meeting and wish to record the speaker

2. If I sell something to someone, agree on a price, they come back later with the money and deny offering me that much (to remind them), or payment terms, time etc.

3. Buying a used car, what the salesman or private party says (or the reverse of 2 perhaps?)

Circumstances like that, few others in everyday life, just general use, either on phone or in person. Hope the examples are good enough.

O.K. time for the stock answer.

and that is, there is NO stock answer. We don't do homework and a situation such as recording conversations is very fact specific. Not only state-fact specific, but also regarding federal privacy laws.

 

[rv684]

ok

Is there someplace a person can go to look this up then? I don't know how a regular person is supposed to figure these things out. I've looked on Google a lot, just found the one party law, looks like I can record by that, but don't know.

on edit:
How about this question. Could I get into trouble if I did decide to record in the situations I just described? Just for personal use. Just would like to know that at least, if at all possible. Thanks.

 

[new-beginnings]

Taped recordings are probably not admissable, as far as using againsed a person! I know in my state (Fredrick, MD), If you record someone on an answering machine/ a 2 way conversation, that can not be used in legal sense. Under some circumstances, if you meet with someone face to face, sometimes that can be used. But only in extreme cases, and I am sure in court it would be argued ""NOT ADMISSABLE"!!!

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Taped recordings are probably not admissable, as far as using againsed a person!

Wrong!

I know in my state (Fredrick, MD), If you record someone on an answering machine/ a 2 way conversation, that can not be used in legal sense.

WRONG!

Under some circumstances, if you meet with someone face to face, sometimes that can be used.

Again, Not always correct.

But only in extreme cases, and I am sure in court it would be argued ""NOT ADMISSABLE"!!!

where did you get this crap?

 

[new-beginnings]

I got "that crap" as you so bluntly expresses, from an attorney! She told me, if for example you are speaking to someone on the phone and you press record on the ans machine without their knowledge, that can not be used againsed them. It can be used if you first inform them, and then they agree! Only exception would be if it was a murder case, extortion etc, and they had nothing else.

I was told if someone agreed to meet with another person, and they had a recording device, they don't have to tell the person, and they can used it againsed them!

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I got "that crap" as you so bluntly expresses, from an attorney!

well the so-called attorney is either legally incompetent or you are lying.

She told me, if for example you are speaking to someone on the phone and you press record on the ans machine without their knowledge, that can not be used againsed them.

BULLCRAP.

It can be used if you first inform them, and then they agree!

again. bullcrap.

Only exception would be if it was a murder case, extortion etc, and they had nothing else.
k

N ow I know you're pulling this crap out of your ass because no attorney who cares about their license to practice law would spount such nonsense.

I was told if someone agreed to meet with another person, and they had a recording device, they don't have to tell the person, and they can used it againsed them!

you are so full of crap that all I can advise you is to either change your 'attorney' or stop lying.

 

[fairisfair]

I got "that crap" as you so bluntly expresses, from an attorney! She told me, if for example you are speaking to someone on the phone and you press record on the ans machine without their knowledge, that can not be used againsed them. It can be used if you first inform them, and then they agree! Only exception would be if it was a murder case, extortion etc, and they had nothing else.

I was told if someone agreed to meet with another person, and they had a recording device, they don't have to tell the person, and they can used it againsed them!

This is not the first thread where you have given incorrect information. Please stop.

FYI Belize is an attorney. Save yourself the embarassment of arguing with him.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

rv684,

Now that we have hopefully gotten rid of the pretent attorney, here is the answer.

You have not given enough specific information to ascertain whether or not the alleged taping would be legal under your state's stautes or if it stood a chance of being admited into evidence.

First things first.

Although yours is a one-party state, what that really means is that you have the right to record a conversation IF you are a party to the actual conversation. However, the reason that is not sufficient to determine whether your actions are legal is two-fold.

One, it depends on the totality of the circumstances of the taping, and two, it depends on the location of the taping and the other party.

For discussion sake, if the other party is not located in the same jurisdiction as you during the taping, then Federal law controls and if the other person is in a location which requires two-party or all-party consent, then the taping is illegal.

If the other party is in a place where they have a legal expectation of privacy, i.e., their own office, a meeting with their attorney or doctor, then one-party exceptions do not apply.

Also, the exemption for the purpose of the recording regards tortious intent. If one party is suing you and you attempt to record any conversation for the express purpose of applying for submission into evidence, then that intent shall prevail.

Implied consent is also a factor in recording a conversation you are not a part of and in certain circumstances, can turn an otherwise illegal recording into one that is acceptable to the court. That is also on a case by case basis.

And that only touches the surface of the thought required to advise a client on this matter. That is why I answered as I did. So it would behoove you to sit with your own attorney and outline the exact situation you intend to record.

 

[rv684]

re

I'll just add a couple things, don't need to respond anymore if you feel you've said enough.

First, all recording would be done within the same state, this one.

In any recordings that I have thought about doing, I would be part of the conversation (aside from a lecture situation). It would also not be in a private place such as an office, usually there are other people not concerned with what is going on who can easily hear the discussion, other salesmen or other buyers.

In other situations I have things to sell, it would be on my private property. Price, payment, pickup dates, etc.

In any phone conversations it would be, again in the same state, but lets say I ordered something, and I was told a description of it and when it would be ready, that sort of thing, for my records. Not suing anyone, just for records.

Thanks, I realize that this is apparently a difficult subject, and I know it's not possible, but it would be nice to have a general idea of what's right and wrong, at least an idea, so as one wouldn't have to discuss every such situation with an attorney as it comes up, at least every time. I was Googling until I couldn't see on the subject. Be nice if it would be easier.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

The reason it's not 'easier' is because the situation dedcides the legal worthiness of the act.

It matters not that you are in the same state, on your property, in a place you 'think' does not have an expectation of privacy or any other single thing. What matters is the totality of the situation.

My advice to all those asking is if you have to ask, don't do it. And if you do, be ready to be sued.

 

[rv684]

more

I found a guide of sorts, it looks like it's directed more toward journalists, but looks like it might have some reading on this subject, and state by state information describing some of what has been mentioned. Would it be ok to post a link to it here, and then briefly check it out to see if it is useful/accurate? As I was saying, I was thinking more for reference, not going as far as a lawsuit, just to keep details accurate.

http://rcfp.org/taping/

Might not be accurate, up to the minute, but at least it gives a person an idea of how it works, if a person would have no idea in the first place.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I found a guide of sorts, it looks like it's directed more toward journalists, but looks like it might have some reading on this subject, and state by state information describing some of what has been mentioned. Would it be ok to post a link to it here, and then briefly check it out to see if it is useful/accurate? As I was saying, I was thinking more for reference, not going as far as a lawsuit, just to keep details accurate.

www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html is not accurate as case law changes from day to day. It's only a guide, nothing more.