Having my phone call witnessed?

[quincy]

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

The law covers the "amplification" of a telephone call to eavesdrop on the conversation. Putting a call on speaker amplifies the sound so others can listen.

California PC 632: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632.html

 

[xylene]

Is turning up the handset volume really high eavesdropping?

The use of a speaker phone is not eavesdropping, and no amplifier is used in most speaker phones.

The staute is refering to listening devices.

 

[Zigner]

I agree - thinking of a parabolic antenna - spy stuff.

 

[xylene]

I mean any cordless phone or cell phone is using amplifier. Realistically only old fashioned copper braid pair super local calls haven't been 'amplified'

 

[quincy]

Is turning up the handset volume really high eavesdropping?

The use of a speaker phone is not eavesdropping, and no amplifier is used in most speaker phones.

The staute is refering to listening devices.

California's PC 631 et seq: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-631.html

A lot depends on the intent of the one allowing the eavesdropping and the reasonable expectation of privacy of the caller who is not made aware his conversation is being broadcast to another or others.

 

[FlyingRon]

Don't even need a speaker phone. Can just hold the phone between our ears. However, I think arguing a speaker phone is an amplifying device is a stretch as to what the statute is considering. Even traditional analog, land line, handsets have amplifiers.

In fact, this has been decided in the courts already People v. Soles (68 Cal.App.3d 418 )...

Although the possible effect of section 632 of the Penal Code (electronic eavesdropping on confidential communications) is not mentioned in appellant's brief, the issue was argued in the trial court and will therefore be discussed briefly. The statute does not prohibit eavesdropping in general; it applies only to the use of 'any electronic amplifying or recording device' to eavesdrop upon or record a confidential communication. A telephone extension, not equipped with features for amplification 1 or recording, is not an 'electronic amplifying or recording device'. The action of the motel manager in staying on the line was not electronic eavesdropping within the meaning of the statute.

​

​

 

[xylene]

California's PC 631 et seq: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-631.html

A lot depends on the intent of the one allowing the eavesdropping and the reasonable expectation of privacy of the caller who is not made aware his conversation is being broadcast to another or others.

I certainly agree that intent is critical. I don't agree that unconcealed use of a speaker phone is wiretapping or even is amplification under the law, which is clearly getting old in it's statutory language in an internet and cell phone age.

 

[FlyingRon]

I certainly agree that intent is critical. I don't agree that unconcealed use of a speaker phone is wiretapping or even is amplification under the law, which is clearly getting old in it's statutory language in an internet and cell phone age.

Neither do the courts...see my post.

 

[quincy]

It appears California has tried to include everything in their laws to prevent, without consent from all parties, a private conversation from becoming public.

All I can say for sure is that it will be legally safest to get consent before recording or making a conversation public.

(FR, look to more recent cases - they differ)

 

[xylene]

 

[Just Blue]

Brahahahahahahahhahahahaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaa (taking a breath)...brhahahahahahahahahhahaaahhhhhaaaaaaa

 

[FlyingRon]

I shepd soles and while there are later cases that make negative light of some of the points there, I see nothing that says anything about the phone one of the parties is using being construed as such a device. Most of the negative treatment of soles involves the fact that this was intercepted at a hotel switchboard (which soles considered just to be an additional extension on the line) or in the case such as telemarketers who have an explicit additional system in place to monitor/record calls.

 

[spflanze]

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.

Yes, the point of recording the conversation would have been a way to gather evidence. But it is clear that if I were to do so without court order the recording would not be admissible, and could get me in legal trouble. Furthermore, I now know such court orders are issued only to police, and never for this type of crime.

And so the necessity to have witnesses instead of a recording. It appears it is required he know at the start of the call who else is listening. The two people who would witness the call he did meet when he came to where I live to negotiate and get paid for the deal. Those two did learn then what the swindler was there for by the swindler's own statements in conversation with them, but nether of the two witnessed the payment. I figure the odds he will say something to verify there was a deal and he was paid for it while knowing these two are listening to be low. But there is nothing to lose by trying and so I will try. And since he has already met these two I figure the odds he will have his guard down during the conversation to be somewhat higher. If it goes the way I hope it will the swindler will make another false promise to refund the money because he no longer wants to repair the car just as he did in a prior conversation that was not witnessed. This would confirm to the witnesses that he was paid, and for what he was paid for.

 

[spflanze]

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.

Thanks for this tip. I will take this route first before going to small claims court. Right now I have only the swindler's phone number to identify him for sure. I cannot know for sure the name he gave me was his true name. I was going to use reverse phone number lookup for an initial identity attempt, and after small claims action was filed I was going to subpoena the phone company for more reliable information. I will not be able to subpoena if I complain to the Bureau of Automotive Repair. Nevertheless, I will do it with the information I can get from a reverse phone lookup service on the internet. In that complaint I will include how I identified him, and maybe they will have means to get more reliable information.

 

[Zigner]

The problem with a "witness" to the recording is that the testimony that the "witness" to the call would be giving would be hearsay and not admissible anyway.