Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Voice Recording Consent in Ms

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    I know most people say, "Cover your ass :what:" and notify people etc. at al and what not. However, the limited information I've been able to find says that Mississippi is a One-Party consent state for oral communications. I'm sure that's mostly directed at recording phone lines for businesses and private parties.

    Anyone know how this relates to face-to-face oral communications and voice recorders? If I have problems with Leo's (and in my town I know I probably will) I want to know how far consent has to go, if I notify and they tell me they don't want to be recorded etc. etc. (even though LEO's record US...). I wast know as far as continuing recording when they say "turn it off", or not even notifying them. Do I have a leg to stand on as far as the law goes to keep recording because Ms (as far as I know) is a One-Party state, or will I end up next to bubba for violating recording laws.

    I'm very curious since my permission slip should be in soon (cross fingers :celebrate), and when I start OCing how much do I need to divulge about recording, and the legalities of it if I don't HAVE to notify, I probably won't for the sake of keeping the integrity of the conversation as they WOULD say it, instead of "OH CRAP! he's recording!" and having them turn into a robot that doesn't want to get his ass handed to him by an incriminating recording.

    I'm still sifting through the "Best audio recorders" threads throughout the boards, so I'm in the market if you guys want to throw a suggestion in

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    16,850

    Post imported post

    Johnny_B wrote:
    SNIP I'm very curious...
    You might check here:

    http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/mississippi.html

    There are several links in the left margin of that page. One link seems to address consent.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. (Because that is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--for each other and everybody else--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.)

    Equality and consent of the governed: We're all equal. How can another legitimately govern me without my express consent?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Johnny_B wrote:
    SNIP I'm very curious...
    You might check here:

    http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/mississippi.html

    There are several links in the left margin of that page. One link seems to address consent.
    So if I intercept "Oral" conversations without consent I'm in for it. But it doesn't mention if I'm one of the two-parties if I can record by giving myself consent to record my conversation (sounds weird, but most laws are anyway).

    EDIT: My dumb@$$ re-read it and it just clicked what I read.

    "In addition, the law specifically provides that if a person is a party to a communication, or has obtained consent from any one of the parties, no liability can be imposed unless the interception was accompanied by a criminal or tortious intent. Miss. Code Ann. ยง 41-29-531."

    So basically I'm free to record without notifying based no this code, since I'm a party to the conversation? But again this isn't a phone conversation, but the code above it states "It is generally a violation of Mississippi law to intercept and acquire the contents of wire, oral or other communications with a mechanical or electronic device..."

    So, if I'm not mistaken, according to 41-29-531, if the person recording (me) is a party to a conversation, no liability can be imposed on me unless I had criminal intent. (knowing prosecutors OCing will probably be criminal intent :P)



    So I can just keep it in my pocket That works for me, if I'm not reading this right someone correct me, but these codes are pretty plain and simple to me, I do the recording TOO BAD *

    *I am in no way trying to flaunt recording for malicious purposes, the purposes of the recordings will be self protection, my safety, protecting my rights, as well as having evidence to defend myself, prove a persons account or disprove their accounts of any type of confrontation, detainment, or conversation that will most likely take place some time in the future.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    16,850

    Post imported post

    I think, to do better you will need to read the statutes themselves.

    Which I would recommend, anyway. I oftenuse those sorts of websites as a pathway to finding the actual statutes and court opinions, rather than relying solely on the information in a non-official website such as above.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. (Because that is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--for each other and everybody else--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.)

    Equality and consent of the governed: We're all equal. How can another legitimately govern me without my express consent?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I think, to do better you will need to read the statutes themselves.

    Which I would recommend, anyway. I oftenuse those sorts of websites as a pathway to finding the actual statutes and court opinions, rather than relying solely on the information in a non-official website such as above.
    Just found the whole statute, and it looks like I'm so far iffy, a lot of it applies to cops, operators, and such, but the last part applies to "Those not acting under the color of law" Which I would assume (since these things are suppose to be able to be understood by people without a law degree), means a civvy.

    SEC. 41-29-531. Immunity from civil liability.
    Section 41-29-531, Mississippi Code of 1972, is amended as follows:
    41-29-531. This article shall not apply to:
    (a) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee or agent of a communication common carrier whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, intercepts a communication, or who discloses or uses an intercepted communication in the normal course of employment while engaged in an activity that is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of the communication;
    (b) An officer, employee or agent of a communication common carrier who employs or uses any equipment or device which may be attached to any telephonic equipment of any subscriber which permits the interception and recording of any telephonic communications solely for the purposes of business service improvements;
    (c) An officer, employee or agent of a communication common carrier who provides information, facilities or technical assistance to an investigative or law enforcement officer who is authorized as provided by this article to intercept a wire, oral or other communication;
    (d) A person acting under color of law who intercepts a wire, oral or other communication if the person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception; or
    (e) A person not acting under color of law who intercepts a wire, oral or other communication if the person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this state, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.










    So I think I'm right, but this is only civil liability, not anything to do with if its criminal liability, civil means money, criminal means I go see bubba...

    So still gotta do some searching, I'll try to find out though



    EDIT:

    So basically I can't be sued for not notifying people, but I can't find anything that says I will or will not face charges...

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    16,850

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure you found the whole statute. Something seems to be missing. That section gives exemptions fromsomething else.

    What is the something else?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. (Because that is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--for each other and everybody else--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.)

    Equality and consent of the governed: We're all equal. How can another legitimately govern me without my express consent?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I'm not sure you found the whole statute. Something seems to be missing. That section gives exemptions fromsomething else.

    What is the something else?
    Sorry, first time trying to reffer to statutes in a forum,it goes on about recording devices, excemptions from penalties, ect. but mostly talks about law enforcement obtaining permission, who can do what and more.

    http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/41/029/index.htm

    This specific series on "intercepting communications" starts at 41-29-501

    Again sorry for not putting up what's exempt, not used to going through laws..

    It exempts from civil action,

    SEC. 41-29-529. Civil action for violation of this article.
    (1) A person whose wire, oral or other communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this article shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures another person to intercept, disclose or use the communication, and is entitled to recover from the person:

    (a) Actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at a rate of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) a day for each day of violation or One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), whichever is higher;

    (b) Punitive damages; and

    (c) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

    (2) A good faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this article.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Heh, I'm sure I'm making myself look like a fool trying to figure this out, but I'm learning! :P

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    16,850

    Post imported post

    Based on the wording of"-529", I'm expecting to see a section that says something to the effect that allinterceptions are illegal, exceptas exempted below. Then a list of all the exceptions--law enforcement, getting warrants, personal use, etc.

    I'm just not seeing the section thatdeclares it illegal. I wonder if itis the "missing" section 502.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. (Because that is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--for each other and everybody else--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.)

    Equality and consent of the governed: We're all equal. How can another legitimately govern me without my express consent?

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    16,850

    Post imported post

    Johnny_B wrote:
    Heh, I'm sure I'm making myself look like a fool trying to figure this out, but I'm learning! :P
    Not looking a fool at all. Welcome to researching and reading law. It can be a real pain.

    And that is when the statutes or regulations are not deliberately vague or written badly. Justice Scalia or Roberts mentioned this once, during an interview if I recall.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. (Because that is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--for each other and everybody else--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.)

    Equality and consent of the governed: We're all equal. How can another legitimately govern me without my express consent?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    here's the official MS code search from the sec of state's website

    http://michie.com/mississippi/lpext....-h.htm&cp=


    Under Ms code of 1972, title 21, "Public Health", Chapter 29 "POISONS, DRUGS AND OTHER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES", Article 7 "Interception of Wire or Oral Communications"

    Is the only wiretapping references I've found which the other site had.

    There isn't a "502" from the official source, but why would that be?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Johnny_B wrote:
    Heh, I'm sure I'm making myself look like a fool trying to figure this out, but I'm learning! :P
    Not looking a fool at all. Welcome to researching and reading law. It can be a real pain.

    And that is when the statutes or regulations are not deliberately vague or written badly. Justice Scalia or Roberts mentioned this once, during an interview if I recall.
    I appreciate that, and it is a pain!

    I don't think they we're written badly, just haven't found what I'm looking for, although wiretapping is in an obscure place, the title on public health? I wouldn't have even thought to begin looking there if I hadn't had known what a piece of the statue was. But I guess it does cover it from the controlled substance stand point.

  13. #13
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    824

    Post imported post

    Johnny_B wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Johnny_B wrote:
    Heh, I'm sure I'm making myself look like a fool trying to figure this out, but I'm learning! :P
    Not looking a fool at all. Welcome to researching and reading law. It can be a real pain.

    And that is when the statutes or regulations are not deliberately vague or written badly. Justice Scalia or Roberts mentioned this once, during an interview if I recall.
    I appreciate that, and it is a pain!

    I don't think they we're written badly, just haven't found what I'm looking for, although wiretapping is in an obscure place, the title on public health? I wouldn't have even thought to begin looking there if I hadn't had known what a piece of the statue was. But I guess it does cover it from the controlled substance stand point.
    Just remember that the general rule is that which is not forbidden is allowed. If you are looking for a particular law saying that you are allowed to do something, you could end up looking forever. Our system is designed to tell you what you cannot do, not what you can do.

    I know it does not seem that way, as the "progressives" have tried to reverse that standard to the one used in totalitarian states "that which is not allowed is forbidden", and have had some success, such as in zoneing, but in general, if it is not forbidden, it is allowed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •