Are Hidden Cameras Legal to Protect yourself?

[nanu156]

At this time you probably need to enlist a professional. I don't believe that this is a DIY project.

I would suggest first contacting your local shelter for battered women, they have legal resources that may be able to assist you. I can't believe a judge ordered aginst public transfers, possibly police transfers, but public ones? Unless dad has some extenuating circumstance like the lack of a license or a car, or you were asking to transfer far from dads home. Are you sure you didn't agree to this in a settlement?? like through mediation or in a settlement room partially though a hearing that looked like it might be going the wrong way?

 

[Silverplum]

At this time you probably need to enlist a professional. I don't believe that this is a DIY project.

I would suggest first contacting your local shelter for battered women, they have legal resources that may be able to assist you. I can't believe a judge ordered aginst public transfers, possibly police transfers, but public ones? Unless dad has some extenuating circumstance like the lack of a license or a car, or you were asking to transfer far from dads home. Are you sure you didn't agree to this in a settlement?? like through mediation or in a settlement room partially though a hearing that looked like it might be going the wrong way?

Believe it.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

If a person is having a conversation with a person on the phone and they happen to hear the conversation, where does that fit into the scenario? Obviously, the person (on the other end) COULD call the police. Me, I might be having a conversation with someone who is NOT far away who could run interference if necessary.

 

[Foolish1]

I spoke to my lawyer about this late yesterday to ease my mind. I should have talked to him first. I printed out the responses from this forum and showed him. I won’t repeat what he said as to not offend anyone but I will say that that the vast majority of responses to my post are not only wrong but “without any consideration of the facts or circumstances …. Just blind responses” (his words).
He told me I’m allowed to do what I’m doing just as long as it’s not inside his house. I asked about how I can know if it’s considered a public place and he responded, “if you could get arrested for having sex there, then it’s a public place.” Haha! I asked even if it’s in a private apartment complex? He said absolutely. Does not matter if it’s privately owned or not (he gave a privately owned restaurant as an example as being a public place). If the public has open access then its public. Period.
So there you have it. If you can’t be naked (legally) there then it’s NOT considered a private place. Good to know!

 

[stealth2]

I spoke to my lawyer about this late yesterday to ease my mind. I should have talked to him first. I printed out the responses from this forum and showed him. I won’t repeat what he said as to not offend anyone but I will say that that the vast majority of responses to my post are not only wrong but “without any consideration of the facts or circumstances …. Just blind responses” (his words).
He told me I’m allowed to do what I’m doing just as long as it’s not inside his house. I asked about how I can know if it’s considered a public place and he responded, “if you could get arrested for having sex there, then it’s a public place.” Haha! I asked even if it’s in a private apartment complex? He said absolutely. Does not matter if it’s privately owned or not (he gave a privately owned restaurant as an example as being a public place). If the public has open access then its public. Period.
So there you have it. If you can’t be naked (legally) there then it’s NOT considered a private place. Good to know!

Your lawyer would, of course, know your situation better than anyone. So yes - you *should* have called him. In future, please send him your money instead of wasting our time.

However, none of that makes your recordings admissible in court.

 

[nanu156]

Your lawyer would, of course, know your situation better than anyone. So yes - you *should* have called him. In future, please send him your money instead of wasting our time.

However, none of that makes your recordings admissible in court.

Ok, so then we all hopefully learned something about the laws in YOUR state. What did your attorney say about getting you a TRO or public locations for exchanges? Did he get started on a motion for you to get into a safer situation with this person?? IF he did not you should seek new counsel, after-all recordings won't do you any good if he hurts/kills you.

 

[stealth2]

Ok, so then we all hopefully learned something about the laws in YOUR state. What did your attorney say about getting you a TRO or public locations for exchanges? Did he get started on a motion for you to get into a safer situation with this person?? IF he did not you should seek new counsel, after-all recordings won't do you any good if he hurts/kills you.

According to OP's lawyer, the exchange is already in a public place - the hall outside of Dad's apartment. Can't have it both ways.

And yes, Mork (sorry - but that is where my brain goes w/nanu, so it is my new name for you. Meant in friendliness - really), I know you meant somewhere MORE public, but...

 

[nanu156]

According to OP's lawyer, the exchange is already in a public place - the hall outside of Dad's apartment. Can't have it both ways.

And yes, Mork (sorry - but that is where my brain goes w/nanu, so it is my new name for you. Meant in friendliness - really), I know you meant somewhere MORE public, but...

Mork is exactly where the name came from. I think on a post I told a sassy poster once to feel free to "name her child mork or mindy" lol.

For sure, on the exchange being considered "public", My point is that poster appears to think she can prove that this person aims to do her harm. If that is the case a place with witnesses would certainly be safer.

I think OP's atty sucks and again with a history of violence I'm beyond surprised that the judge "ORDERED" the exchanges to be at ex's home. I stand by the previous post that it was likely settled as opposed to ordered (not to imply that i doubt that it is in court orders) I don't have a DV history just a history of TERRIBLE exchanges and it was beyond easy to get a public place exchange on my case (the bad case, the better case has us going to each-other's home, while I think both are snakes, I only have concern of police involvement/charges etc on the real bad one)

Has it also been your experience that in situations where family violence and police involvement is a part of the case's history that a judge will typically order transfers to be extremely public as to error on the side of caution and discourage future violence? It certainly seems to fit best interests standards.

The lack of such orders leads me to believe that OP's claims are unsubstantiated and the judge felt she was trying to manipulate the situation with various police reports. Could be wring of course because we are all armchair QB's on this.

My question is, that if there was a confirmed history of DV and OP requested very public exchanges as a result and was denied (after being reasonable, not asking dad to drive 30 miles to the places) couldn't the judge be considered negligent by ignoring OP's requests if and when something happened to her? (This is an actual question, as I don't know the answer. I know people can be found criminally negligent in such circumstances)

Poster has already stated that we are stupid (totally her prerogative) so I suppose now this thread serves as a learning experience.

 

[justalayman]

If you can’t be naked (legally) there then it’s NOT considered a private place. Good to know!

Listen to your lawyer, obviously, but when I posted, I had a citation that actually addressed the type of area you speak of. It did state that that area was considered a private place for the purposes of the law in question. I cannot recall what it and couldn't find it quickly so I gave up. Your lawyer's advice is what you should listen to so it really doesn't matter what the case involved.


This isn't it but it does provide the Georgia definition of "private place"

A. Section 26-3001 states in relevant part that "t shall be unlawful for (a) any person in a clandestine manner to intentionally overhear ... or attempt to overhear ... the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place ..." (Emphasis supplied.) A private place is defined in Code Ann. § 26-3009 as "a place where one is entitled to reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance."

but just to show his statement is also not entirely correct:

If you can’t be naked (legally) there then it’s NOT considered a private place

You can't stand naked in front of a window, even if that window is in your bedroom yet a conversation in your bedroom still falls under the purview of the eavesdropping law as a private place.

 

[Zigner]

You can't stand naked in front of a window, even if that window is in your bedroom yet a conversation in your bedroom still falls under the purview of the eavesdropping law as a private place.

But, how could the hallway, where any other resident can be, also be considered a "private" place?

 

[Ohiogal]

But, how could the hallway, where any other resident can be, also be considered a "private" place?

It is NOT in a public building or outside. The hallway is privately owned. To take it a step further, if it is place where someone needs BUZZED in and the outside doors are locked and you need a key or something of that juncture, it is private.

 

[Zigner]

It is NOT in a public building or outside. The hallway is privately owned. To take it a step further, if it is place where someone needs BUZZED in and the outside doors are locked and you need a key or something of that juncture, it is private.

So, if I have a group of people over in apt 2a and a few of them are enjoying their glass of wine standing in the hallway outside my door, is the conversation of the folks who are standing outside their apartment 2a (right across the hall) considered private? Why?

 

[Ohiogal]

So, if I have a group of people over in apt 2a and a few of them are enjoying their glass of wine standing in the hallway outside my door, is the conversation of the folks who are standing outside their apartment 2a (right across the hall) considered private? Why?

It is private to the outdoors but not private to others in the hallway. And if you want more details, then:
1) I have to NOT be on vacation from work;
2) Need to not be thinking of having some wine myself;
3) Care a bit more about this situation than I really do since OP wasted her time by having an attorney who said the exact opposite of the law.

 

[justalayman]

But, how could the hallway, where any other resident can be, also be considered a "private" place?

GA definition:

"a place where one is entitled to reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance."

reasonably expect to be safe from surveillance.

If there is nobody else in the hall, they have a reasonable expectation that their conversation will not be overheard unless they speak so loudly as to cause it to be heard by others not in the immediate area. Once there is another person in the hallway, if they continue the conversation loudly enough that that party have hear and understand them, they have waived their right of privacy.

an opposing argument is that anything outside of a persons specific control could be seen as not have that expectation of privacy due to somebody else could have installed surveillance equipment but that is why the law addresses clandestine recording and allows for specific exceptions.



As I read the statute again, I believe there is actually another section that addresses the OP's situation better:

It shall be unlawful for:

(3) Any person to go on or about the premises of another or any private place, except as otherwise provided by law, for the purpose of invading the privacy of others by eavesdropping upon their conversations or secretly observing their activities;

and of course, the catch all:

(7) Any person to commit any other acts of a nature similar to those set out in paragraphs (1) through (6) of this Code section which invade the privacy of another.

I believe that removes the argument of it being in a public place since the intent is to surreptitiously record the conversation. It kind of sneakily gets back to the "all parties must permit" argument without restricting it to a public place.


but OP needs to listen to her attorney. They get paid for the answers and are surely more aware of how their particular area treats any law, regardless of how anybody else interprets it.

 

[Foolish1]

Should I be surprised by some of the responses to my last post? Somewhat. Clearly some people do not read before they respond and others respond “blindly” just as my lawyer stated. I am curious to know how many people who respond have a legal background vs. no professional knowledge at all? I never meant to offend anyone but I think some egos hate to hear anything that may contradict what they believe.

Stealth2, you say I wasted your time? I think you did that to yourself. You’re on a forum! Is it a waste of your time if someone posts something that contradicts what you posted? Just trying to understand your logic?

Nanu, yes, my lawyer has the information and we are working on it. Thank you. Can you give me an example of how my attitude sucks? Just curious. Please let me know what I said that gives you that impression. Also, do you not realize that when a TPO expires the parties simply revert back to the existing order (6 years old in this case)? To have the pick-up arrangements changed requires modifying the existing order and after a long hearing in which both my ex and I requested modifications we were both denied ANY mods. All I wanted was the protection of a public drop off and limited phone calls when the kids were with me. He wanted a big reduction in child support. We were both denied. Nothing I can do. Judge has ruled. Only power higher than a judge is the nightly news according to me mother. Haha. FYI, the public place I wanted was the police station. Three miles away and the same place we had been meeting for the past year. And the TPO was awarded after he hit me, in public, with witnesses and he was arrested. So no, it was not a wishy washy situation. And lastly, I NEVER stated you were all stupid. I can appreciate your attempt to gain support by trying to recruit the group. It’s a behavior I have seen many times in the past but I believe many people on this forum don’t fall for that. Clearly some of the responses here have been sincere and helpful so I thank them for that.

Zigner, I appreciate your comments and think you’re correct. The posts after yours don’t consider the facts which were stated in my posts so they are inaccurate in my opinion. Ohio may be different than Georgia and the statement, “It is NOT in a public building or outside, the hallway is privately owned” is wrong per my attorney’s example of a privately owned restaurant being a public place. Also, his comment about “not being allowed to have sex there” was a joke and his attempt to make it easy for me to understand what constitutes a private place. The key here is if it is openly accessible to the public then it is considered public. I even said “PERIOD” after that statement but some people still didn’t read the statement apparently. Keep in mind no one is eavesdropping here! I’m in the conversation!

Justalayman, Thank you for reading my posts before you replied. Some of your wording mirrored exactly what my layer said enough so for me to think you were him but he swore he never visits this site ;-)