Having my phone call witnessed?

[spflanze]

What is the name of your state? Calfornia
I was foolish enough to get swindled by a man who approached me in a parking lot and offered to do body and engine repairs to my car. A few months after I encountered him I contacted him. He came to where I lived and I paid him $1700 cash. He did not repair the car. I intend to take legal action but have very little evidence, and no paper trail. I am certain I can get the proof I need if I can call him while having the conversation recorded without his knowledge. The original plan was to get a court ordered phone wiretap for this conversation.

I find that in California this order is issued only to police, and are never issued for this type of crime. So now I am asking here about doing the next best thing, which is to have the phone call witnessed. I would use a speaker phone to this, and request the witnesses who would be present for it to take notes of the conversation as it happens. I would then have these witnesses testify in court.

What is the law on this? Is it required this man who swindled me know who else is listening? How many witnesses would be required to have a sufficiently strong case?

It is not practical to have another face to face meeting with swindler with witnesses. Even if he would bother with visiting again, I think there would be a personal safety issue if he were to do so.

 

[adjusterjack]

What is the law on this?

This:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=15.&part=1.&chapter=1.5.&article=

Is it required this man who swindled me know who else is listening?

Yes.

How many witnesses would be required to have a sufficiently strong case?

None. Because it's illegal to record, or have anybody listen to, the conversation without his consent and if you do it you cannot use the conversation as evidence. Read the statute.

Sorry you got swindled.

There's a life lesson in there.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? Calfornia
I was foolish enough to get swindled by a man who approached me in a parking lot and offered to do body and engine repairs to my car. A few months after I encountered him I contacted him. He came to where I lived and I paid him $1700 cash. He did not repair the car. I intend to take legal action but have very little evidence, and no paper trail. I am certain I can get the proof I need if I can call him while having the conversation recorded without his knowledge. The original plan was to get a court ordered phone wiretap for this conversation.

I find that in California this order is issued only to police, and are never issued for this type of crime. So now I am asking here about doing the next best thing, which is to have the phone call witnessed. I would use a speaker phone to this, and request the witnesses who would be present for it to take notes of the conversation as it happens. I would then have these witnesses testify in court.

What is the law on this? Is it required this man who swindled me know who else is listening? How many witnesses would be required to have a sufficiently strong case?

It is not practical to have another face to face meeting with swindler with witnesses. Even if he would bother with visiting again, I think there would be a personal safety issue if he were to do so.

I agree with AJ when it comes to wiretapping and surreptitious recording of phone conversations. The laws in California make these recordings illegal (under most circumstances).

California is a two-party consent state when it comes to recording telephone conversations which means you will need to get the consent of anyone or any others you want to record prior to recording. If you do not get consent, you do not record a phone conversation.

California's recording laws cover surreptitious recordings of conversations that occur over the phone, but also cover in-person conversations. When the other party or parties have "a reasonable expectation" that the conversation is a private and confidential one, you cannot record without consent.

For one more link, this is an overview of the recording laws in California, published by the Digital Media Law Project: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

Not all conversations can reasonably be considered private and confidential, though. While it is always legally safest to get consent before recording anyone, it is possible to record some of your conversations that take place in a public place where others can easily overhear what is being said (and do in fact overhear what is being said).

Any recording you do, therefore, should either be done with clear consent from the other party, or recorded in a public place where your conversation can easily be overheard by others.

With that said, your best action is probably to forget the idea of recording and instead report the fellow to the police. Provide the police with as much information as you have on the guy and let them track him down.

Good luck.

 

[spflanze]

This:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=15.&part=1.&chapter=1.5.&article=



Yes.



None. Because it's illegal to record, or have anybody listen to, the conversation without his consent and if you do it you cannot use the conversation as evidence. Read the statute.

Sorry you got swindled.

There's a life lesson in there.

Then there is nothing to lose by making it clear to the swindler who else is listening. He met my two witnesses when he came to pick up the money. Those two, however, did not witness payment. I would do this speaker phone call on the chance the swindler will say what I need him to say while he is aware of who else is present at the speaker phone. I expect my odds would be greater this way than if he was told the call is being recorded. Suppose the swindler does say what I need him to, how many witnesses would make a strong case then?

 

[quincy]

Then there is nothing to lose by making it clear to the swindler who else is listening. He met my two witnesses when he came to pick up the money. Those two, however, did not witness payment. I would do this speaker phone call on the chance the swindler will say what I need him to say while he is aware of who else is present at the speaker phone. I expect my odds would be greater this way than if he was told the call is being recorded. Suppose the swindler does say what I need him to, how many witnesses would make a strong case then?

You need to inform the man that you are recording the phone call and/or that he is on speaker phone. You must give him the option of hanging up - which he probably will.

 

[Zigner]

I'm not sure why you think you have enough information about the guy to even have him served. Furthermore, even if you sue and even if you win, how do you expect to collect?

 

[quincy]

I'm not sure why you think you have enough information about the guy to even have him served. Furthermore, even if you sue and even if you win, how do you expect to collect?

I believe the point of recording a phone call is to gather information necessary to file suit (name, address).

 

[Zigner]

I believe the point of recording a phone call is to gather information necessary to file suit (name, address).

I disagree - the OP wants to record it as a way to gather evidence to prove his case. If all he wanted were the name and address, he wouldn't need to record it, he could simply write it down.

 

[FlyingRon]

If you have someone (with your consent) eavesdropping, that doesn't require the consent or notification of the other party. However, that person's "witnessing" isn't likely going to be admissible in a civil action anyhow.

 

[quincy]

If you have someone (with your consent) eavesdropping, that doesn't require the consent or notification of the other party. However, that person's "witnessing" isn't likely going to be admissible in a civil action anyhow.

Consent is needed if you are sharing a private phone call with others. A caller should inform the recipient that others are hearing the call on speakerphone.

 

[adjusterjack]

If you have someone (with your consent) eavesdropping, that doesn't require the consent or notification of the other party

Not correct. Please read the statute.

 

[adjusterjack]

Then there is nothing to lose by making it clear to the swindler who else is listening. He met my two witnesses when he came to pick up the money. Those two, however, did not witness payment. I would do this speaker phone call on the chance the swindler will say what I need him to say while he is aware of who else is present at the speaker phone. I expect my odds would be greater this way than if he was told the call is being recorded. Suppose the swindler does say what I need him to, how many witnesses would make a strong case then?

You're dreaming. I predict that the swindler won't even take your call, much less talk to you when he knows there are witnesses to the conversation. He's a crook, remember? Crooks don't cooperate with people who accuse them of being crooks.

 

[quincy]

I think when you hand someone you meet in a parking lot $1700, you are unlikely to see that $1700 again.

 

[xylene]

the OP should contract the Bureau of Automotive Repair (B.A.R.) who does administrative and law enforcement actions against unlicensed mechanics.

https://www.bar.ca.gov/Consumer/Auto_Repair_Guide.html

That's the best bet for getting satisfaction. A whole agency who enforces car mechanic swindles.

 

[FlyingRon]

Show me the statute. The ones I'm familiar with only apply to using electronic means to eavesdrop or intercept the communications.