Legal to tape neighbors? (CA)

[atxcoolguy]

California has specific laws re recording confidential conversations, be it eavesdropping, wiretapping and or videotaping. If you read the Federal statute, which applies to all states, you will notice the if and or when State law is more comprehensive, State law applies. In other words, the Federal statute is the minimum required. What your mother did in Texas is not relevant to OP's question. Furthermore, in many cases, there is notice of survailence as required by law, or a specific exception where confidentiality laws would be waived. In this case, OP cannot intentionally record their conversations, now if they are so loud that when they call the police, the dispatcher can hear the noise, then that is different.

you state the california law has specific laws regarding "confidential conversations". i doubt what OP is going through is confidential. i seriously doubt that recording on your property and overhearing loud neighbors is hardly confidential converstion. there is a big difference between confidential and conversations overheard from a long distance away.

i understand federal and state laws quite well. if what you're saying is true, then everyday californian's rights are violated if they go to a convenience store, walmart, the bank, walk by a movie star's house, etc. most of these places have surveillance and sound recording. why are they any different, especially a movie star who uses surveillance as security?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

i understand federal and state laws quite well. if what you're saying is true, then everyday californian's rights are violated if they go to a convenience store, walmart, the bank, walk by a movie star's house, etc. most of these places have surveillance and sound recording. why are they any different, especially a movie star who uses surveillance as security?

You understand nothing and continue to argue for your ignorance.

First, the question of how loud the conversation is and whether or not it rises to such a level as to negate the 'expectation of privacy' is a question of fact for a judge and/or jury. NOT a given.

And second, the business you suggest and any other business or public venue that you are not required to enter but enter on your own has no inherent expectation of privacy and therefore may, without sound, record for security purposes, your visual image.

Now isn't it time you stopped showing your ignorance?

 

[ms.magoo]

Legal to tape neighbours ? (CA)

Now this has got me interested, lol. It just so happens that my bad neighbours have actually video taped my good neighbour while he was walking from his yard to ours to hook up some garden hoses so he could fill up his little motorhome water tank. We're talking like ten gallons of water here. The bad lady did this twice, an neither us nor him knew anything about them taping him untill they included it in their list of documents. The only person that was taped talking on that piece of tape evidence, was only her, stating that she had told us before not to give him a drop of water an there we were allowing him to have some water again. The second time you could hear that she had to run in order to get him on video tape as she was huffing pretty badily, lol. (could that also be a form of stalking, although she shot the video evidence on her own property) And another time she whipped the video camera out on us, an we were in the middle of a confrontation with her, an she taped us speaking to her, she never asked if we'd allow her to do that, but thats also on the evidence tape as well. Now whats your take on that one ??? In turn we had to buy ourselves a video camera in order to show all the different damages they've done to our water system, we've never video taped them or had any voice recordings of them on our evidence tapes. So when the time finally comes to go in front of a Supreme Court Judge an trial, I imagine we can object on those parts of the tape or should we allow them to try an use em, then do the objection as its not admissible ? I'm just curious as to what avenue would be the best one ?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Now this has got me interested, lol. It just so happens that my bad neighbours have actually video taped my good neighbour while he was walking from his yard to ours to hook up some garden hoses so he could fill up his little motorhome water tank. We're talking like ten gallons of water here. The bad lady did this twice, an neither us nor him knew anything about them taping him untill they included it in their list of documents. The only person that was taped talking on that piece of tape evidence, was only her, stating that she had told us before not to give him a drop of water an there we were allowing him to have some water again. The second time you could hear that she had to run in order to get him on video tape as she was huffing pretty badily, lol. (could that also be a form of stalking, although she shot the video evidence on her own property) And another time she whipped the video camera out on us, an we were in the middle of a confrontation with her, an she taped us speaking to her, she never asked if we'd allow her to do that, but thats also on the evidence tape as well. Now whats your take on that one ??? In turn we had to buy ourselves a video camera in order to show all the different damages they've done to our water system, we've never video taped them or had any voice recordings of them on our evidence tapes. So when the time finally comes to go in front of a Supreme Court Judge an trial, I imagine we can object on those parts of the tape or should we allow them to try an use em, then do the objection as its not admissible ? I'm just curious as to what avenue would be the best one ?

Please start your own thread and don't hijack this one.

 

[ms.magoo]

Legal to tape neighbours ? (CA)

Oops, I'm sorry about that Belize. I'm still new to this, so I did it by mistake. I know better now an won't do that again.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Oops, I'm sorry about that Belize. I'm still new to this, so I did it by mistake. I know better now an won't do that again.

Your questions are valid. Just not here.

 

[Impatiens]

As to you Impatiens, NOWHERE in your post have you stipulated they were ONLY outside the home. So lose the attitude.QUOTE]

I stated I taped them from inside my own livingroom. I could care less that they say in private - these are all public conversations as far as I'm concerned because the whole neighborhood can hear them. We are in a mobile home park. My livingroom windows are approximately 10' from their yard.

Thanks for listing the PC sections & appellate cases. This leads to two more questions:

1. Is there an expectation of privacy in yard just a few feet from neighbor?

(I have heard her say (in her yard) "I know she can hear every f***ing word I'm saying and I don't give a f*** cause she's a f***ing *itch and she's that close to the last f***ing nail in her coffin").

2. Is an audio tape admissable if I tape my advising her that I am taping her?

Thanks,
Impatiens in California

 

[atxcoolguy]

belize seems to think that any advice is just plain wrong and ignorant. this is the idea of a free advice forum. i doubt anybody on here will trust anybody's advice fully and should consult with an attorney regarding legal matters. should i say duh here? the point of giving advice, even if its not entirely correct, is to open up minds and bring about new ideas. i repeat, this is not free legal advice from an attorney. this is called effective communication and gives way to new ideas. no point in calling names. i bet you feel proud of yourself belize, you're probably 30-40 years older than me and act about 10 years younger than me. grow up

look back at your threads when you try to say i'm wrong because of california laws, yet you pointed back to federal laws until your last post, when you quoted the law corectly. doesn't sound too clever on your part. hope you're not a real lawyer. could have saved alot of time by stating that to begin with. anyway, go on call me an idiot, ignorant, or whatever. whatever makes you happy. i won't go down the kid name calling game.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

belize seems to think that any advice is just plain wrong and ignorant. this is the idea of a free advice forum. i doubt anybody on here will trust anybody's advice fully and should consult with an attorney regarding legal matters. should i say duh here? the point of giving advice, even if its not entirely correct, is to open up minds and bring about new ideas. i repeat, this is not free legal advice from an attorney. this is called effective communication and gives way to new ideas. no point in calling names. i bet you feel proud of yourself belize, you're probably 30-40 years older than me and act about 10 years younger than me. grow up

look back at your threads when you try to say i'm wrong because of california laws, yet you pointed back to federal laws until your last post, when you quoted the law corectly. doesn't sound too clever on your part. hope you're not a real lawyer. could have saved alot of time by stating that to begin with. anyway, go on call me an idiot, ignorant, or whatever. whatever makes you happy. i won't go down the kid name calling game.

I gave OP link to article explaining CA law in post #2. Proving you ignorant, you have no gripe against Belieze Breeze.

 

[Impatiens]

Oops, I'm sorry about that Belize. I'm still new to this, so I did it by mistake. I know better now an won't do that again.

Don't feel bad. Hope the lack of social graces didn't hurt your feelings. I'm very interested in your questions and look forward to other's input.

Another newbie,
Impatiens

 

[Impatiens]

First, the question of how loud the conversation is and whether or not it rises to such a level as to negate the 'expectation of privacy' is a question of fact for a judge and/or jury. NOT a given.QUOTE]

I'd bet most judges would admit my tapes, as this is recorded inside my home, never outside. This is just a standard personal tape recorder, not some surveillance equipment or special microphone. Most tapes were obtained without intent to record them. This was after she made a false complalint that my dog barked all day long, which prompted me leave the tape recorder going inside my home for the purpose of testing my dog.

Impatiens

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I'd bet most judges would admit my tapes, as this is recorded inside my home, never outside.

And that has nothing to do with the admissibility of any evidence. I guess you just don't care what the legal answer is, you just want to hear that you are right.
Not this time.

This is just a standard personal tape recorder, not some surveillance equipment or special microphone.

Irrelevant

Most tapes were obtained without intent to record them.

Again irrelevant

This was after she made a false complalint that my dog barked all day long, which prompted me leave the tape recorder going inside my home for the purpose of testing my dog.

Impatiens

again, irrelevant. The ONLY points in which the court will judge the tape is on the basis of expectation of privacy, whether the person doing the recording was an agent of the government, in which case higher standards would apply and consent. In fact, those are the ONLY issues they are allowed, under law, to judge regarding admissibility of private recordings.

No one ever said your tapes will NOT be admitted. But it's the court's decision based on ALL of the evidence. Not only on what YOU say.

And I would be willing to bet that the neighbor, on hearing your tape, is going to tell the judge that you hid the recorder in your pocket (hence the muffled sound of their voices) during an argument in their own home while you were standing outside.

Since it is YOUR evidence you want admitted, it is YOUR burden of proof that the recording was obtained legally and within the boundaries set by California statue.

 

[Impatiens]

Windy in Belize!

I guess you just don't care what the legal answer is, you just want to hear that you are right.
Not this time.

Do you ever change your demeanor from that of a criminal prosecutor (if that is what you are)? I'm here to discuss and learn - certainly not to be right!

Impatiens

 

[TewlMan]

Reasonable ?

Newly Minted Member Here ... I noticed this site while searching for info related to my own problem ... which I'll probably start a thread on elsewhere.

I also have neighbor issues, & have had for more than seven years now. They're being recorded for most of each & every day.

From what I've learned (so far) the issue does revolve around a reasonable expectation of privacy ... not applicable to misanthropic morons who are screaming & cursing up & down the street for all to hear (& record). They might claim an expectation, but it's certainly not a reasonable one.

TewlMan