Of course it is. However, what you plan to do with that recording... may or may not be allowed by law.b11_ said:Is it legal to tape-record someone who is in the same room and not ask for permission to tape-record them?
b11_ said:Room - dental office
Will use tape recording if I have to sue dentist
Actually the correct answer is NO IT IS NOT LEGAL IN PA. Pa is a two-party state, one of twelve in the US, that requires the permission of all parties in the conversation in order to tape record.b11_ said:What is the name of your state?
Pa.
Is it legal to tape-record someone who is in the same room and not ask for permission to tape-record them?
Actually JETX, PA is a two party state -- hence it is NOT legal to record the conversation without the consent of all involved.JETX said:Of course it is. However, what you plan to do with that recording... may or may not be allowed by law.
Sorry, but you are NOT correct. There is NO law preventing someone from recording an otherwise unprotected conversation. The issue of legality only becomes relevant when you do something with that recording.Ohiogal said:Actually JETX, PA is a two party state -- hence it is NOT legal to record the conversation without the consent of all involved.
Sue dentist for what??b11_ said:Will use tape recording if I have to sue dentist
JETX:JETX said:Sorry, but you are NOT correct. There is NO law preventing someone from recording an otherwise unprotected conversation. The issue of legality only becomes relevant when you do something with that recording.
Read 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5703, 5704. Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5702.
A trial court has held that a communication protected by the legislation is one in which there is an expectation that it will not be recorded by any electronic device, rather than one in which there is a general expectation of privacy. Thus, the fact that a participant may believe he will have to reveal the contents of a communication, or that other parties may repeat the contents, does not necessarily mean that he would have expected that it would be recorded, and it is the expectation that the communication would not be recorded that triggers the wiretapping law's protections. Pennsylvania v. McIvor, 670 A.2d 697 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996), petition for appeal denied, 692 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1997).
Not true. People tape for all kinds of reasons.... because they want to memorialize their childs first words.....Ohiogal said:Well Jetx has a point, but with it being a two party state, there is no legal use for the tape afterwards which defeats the purpose of taping.
See..... you even admit that you were wrong. There is NOTHING in the original post to even suggest the use of that recording. The question was a very simple "Is it legal to tape-record someone who is in the same room and not ask for permission to tape-record them?". And the answer to that very simple question is clearly YES. However, when you put YOUR extension to that question, it is clear that the perfectly legal recording cannot be used in court..... without facing a legal challenge.My purpose for saying it is not legal is because if you tape the dentist without his consent (which to me taping him public with the recorder showing or where there is no expectation of privacy is WITH his consent) then you can't do anything with the tape without legal problems.
Nope. Don't impose YOUR version on someone elses post, changing it, then try to claim YOUR circumstance is correct.So we all agree but were looking at it differently.