The conversation was taped from an Iowa land line
And I will disagree with you.
The language of the Communications Act which you referenced is vague on several issues, not the least of which is the discussion of the mixture of 'radio' and land line transmission.
Section 705 does prohibit a person from using an intercepted radio communication for his or her own benefit. One court held that under this provision a taxicab company may sue its competitor for wrongfully intercepting and using for its benefit radio communications between the company's dispatchers and drivers. A more recent Supreme Court decision, however, raises First Amendment issues about the ability of the government to regulate the disclosure of legally-obtained radio communications, and this area of the law remains unsettled.
I also note that the Communications Act prohibits "Interception" of radio transmissions but is also silent on recording of such.
And in light of the language of the Communications Act, and since this is not a clear case of 'interception', we have to look to state law.
Iowa Code § 727.8: It is a misdemeanor in Iowa under general criminal laws to tap into a communication of any kind, including telephone conversations, unless the person listening or recording is a sender or recipient of the communication, or is openly present and participating in the conversation. Thus, one party to a communication generally may record it without the consent of the other parties.
Iowa also has more specific legislation regarding the interception of communications that expressly allows the interception of wire, oral or electronic communications through use of a mechanical device by a party to the communication, or with the consent of at least one party, in the absence of any criminal or tortious intent. Iowa Code § 808B.2.
Illegal interception and disclosure of intercepted information under this legislation are misdemeanors, and anyone whose communications have been intercepted is expressly provided with injunctive relief and damages at a rate of $100 a day or $1,000, whichever is higher. Iowa Code § 808B.8.
And under U.S. Code:
In the absence of more restrictive state law, it is permissible to intercept and record a telephone conversation if one or both of the parties to the call consents. Consent means authorization by only one participant in the call; single-party consent is provided for by specific statutory exemption under federal law. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(d).
Now, since Illinois is (by statute) a two-party state and Iowa is a one-party state, it would seem that under U.S.C> Sec. 2511(2)(d) the more restrictive state law would prevail. However, the courts (at least in Illinois) have already weighed in on this one.
"Illinois is, by statute, a two-party state. However, case law from both the IL Supreme Court and various Illinois appellate courts have declared Illinois a one-party state in the case of private citizens (businesses and plain folks - NOT law enforcement). The reigning consensus is that one-party consensual recording is merely "enhanced note-taking" and since some folks have total recall without recording, how can the other party have any expectation of privacy to a conversation held with another person.
Illinois requires prior consent of all participants to monitor or record a phone conversation. Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 38, Sec. 14-2. There is no specific business telephone exception, but in general courts have found extension telephones do not constitute eavesdropping devices. Criminal penalties for unlawful eavesdropping include up to three years' imprisonment or $10,000 in fines and the civil remedy provides for recovery of actual and punitive damages.
In the state of Illinois it is illegal to monitor cordless phones."
Now to the crux of the matter. The call, regardless of where it originated and if it was land to cell, cell to land or radio to land or visa versa, was tape recorded by a party to the conversation in a one-party state.
Therefore, that state's laws prevail. Illinois has no jurisdiction over recordings made in other states. If someone outside of Illinois records a telephone conversation with someone in Illinois, that person cannot be prosecuted under the Illinois law.
Because Illinois cannot have jurisdiction over a party in Iowa, either Iowa statutes or federal law apply.