recording conversations

[~*geNeRaTiOn E*~]

i checked out the CA Invasion of Privacy act and from what i can tell, it would NOT be illegal for me to record conversations i have with someone in my own home and not notify them of said recordings. would i be correct in this assumption or would it be considered a "private" conversation where all parties involved would need to be notified?

the recorded conversations will be used as evidence in court if that makes a difference.

 

[Johnny1]

When the recording is made in California, all parties to the conversation need to consent to the recording if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy when engaging in the conversation.

I don't know for sure, but it seems logical to me that if you begin making the recording, and then tell the other person, "Johnny, I just want to let you know that I'm recording our conversation," if the other person then engages you in conversation, they have just consented. But I'm not positive.

Does this jive with your understanding? If not, please post your cite and I will check it out.

If you can get this person to Nevada, I think you can make a secret recording and have it be admissible. If I remember correctly, only one party to a conversation there needs to be aware it's being recorded.

 

[~*geNeRaTiOn E*~]

there is no way i'm taking a 4 hour trip to NV with this person, i don't even want him in my house!

that clears things up a bit, i'll ask for more clarification (if needed) when i meet with an attorney.

 

[Johnny1]

Here's a quick link if you want to look at the text of the law and haven't seen it already. It's California Penal Code Section 630, et seq. [and the sections that follow].

Check the box next to Penal Code and search for "630" here:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

With respect to gaining the other person's consent, as I think about it I think it would be very helpful to get a statement from the other person that makes it obvious s/he knows the conversation is being recorded. Otherwise, you could issue the advisory without the other person being present, then continue the recording in their presence, and it would not be obvious that they have actually consented. So, recording your warning, which is followed by an acknowledgment or consent by the other party ("yeah, I don't care if you record it, do whatever you want,") is what you need.

 

[VerbalTruist]

It is illegal to record someone without their knowledge in California.

 

[Johnny1]

^ Unless they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

For example, I would have no problem recording a police officer's conversation with me during a traffic stop without letting him or her know. Some people might consider that a violation of the law, and I don't know if there's been case law on it, but my educated guess is that a police office doesn't have an expectation of privacy when conversing with a citizen in the course of the officer's duties. (And, they regularly record their own interactions with citizens to protect themselves so that makes it even less of a concern.) I will do some quick research on the issue of recording interactions with the police soon.

 

[tobala]

^ I seem to recall some laws being proposed and/or passed in recent years against citizens video recording police actions. I'm not sure where such laws were proposed/passed or if they held up under appeals.

 

[Banquo]

Here's a quick state-by-state summary chart for phone conversations.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/quick.html

(Laws for eavesdropping and in-person conversations are similar, if not the same, to the laws for recording phone conversations.)

BUT as Johnny pointed out, there is a second crucial part to this -- namely the recorded subject's expectation of privacy. In short, if someone is a state actor, like a police officer, carrying out his official duties, he or she might might not have an expcetation of privacy, thus the consent law would not apply. There is some disagreement between and among the states about how the law works here. But most prosecutors seem to back off when it comes to recording the police...

In recent months such cases have been piling up. Brian Kelly of Carlisle, Pa., was a passenger in his friend's car when the police pulled the vehicle over for speeding. When Kelly began videotaping, he was arrested and charged with violating a state wiretap statute and thrown in jail overnight. Charges were dropped when the district attorney recognized that recording police in public isn't much like wiretapping. In addition, the DA said that the police had no expectation of privacy when they themselves were recording the incident. Michael Gannon, of Nashua, N.H., faced similar charges when he used a front-door security camera to record what he considered to be overly aggressive behavior by a detective. The charges against Gannon were dropped. That's the eventual outcome in most such cases, though sometimes photographs and video are lost in the process.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4237005.html

 

[tobala]

That's the eventual outcome in most such cases, though sometimes photographs and video are lost in the process.

Ha! Seems like if a citizen catches LE in the act of bad behavior on video, they can squirm out of it by charging him with wiretap statute violations, confiscating the "evidence," and then dropping the "charges" later. Typical.

 

[forgotten]

Here in FL, there is a statute that acts to make FL a two-party consent state (934.03). The Florida Supreme Court has found that there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy (in regards to face to face conversations) in order for the statute to be applicable.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Migut v. Flynn 131 Fed.Appx. 262 (2005), held that just because a traffic stop takes place on a public street does not mean that the police officer's communication is not protected under § 934.03 and whether a particular communication is protected under § 934.03(1)(a) is an intensely fact-specific inquiry, and we are not prepared to hold that the Florida legislature intended to exclude from the protections of § 934.03 all citizen communications with all police officers during all traffic stops on a public street.

For something really fucked up, the statute has a specific provision that allows police officers an exemption if they are recording a conversation to which they are a party to, given that they are conducting a lawful investigation.

In summary, Florida police can record a motorist that they stop for a traffic offense, but the same motorist is prohibited from recording them.