Personal recording devices for encounters.

imported post

astrogiblet wrote:

At the last OC picnic, Jim Simmons was there (he's a lawyer for those of you who don't know). And said generally, recordings without permission are not admissible in court. He said sometimes you can get a judge to allow it but generally not. Its not legal to record somebody without their permission.

So I wouldn't blow a ton of money on a recording device. Get a cheapo (with a good mic) and hope that you get a good judge.

Click to expand...

In Michigan, it is permissible for you to record a conversation you are a party to (whether in person or on a phone) without the knowledge or consent of others in the conversation.

In Michigan, it is NOT permissible to record a conversation you are NOT party to without the knowledge and consent of all parties to the conversation.

The above was explained to me by my attorney during a consultation for a matter in which Icovertly recordedsome conversations I wasa party to.

So, it is legal to record somebody else without their permission, IF you are party to a conversation with them.

I don't know about admissibility in court of a recording of a conversation with a non-LEO.

I believe yourrecording of a conversation between you and a LEO, with our without his knowledge,would be admissible because LEO interactions with citizens generally are held to be public, not private, interactions. After all, they almost always ARE recording their interaction with YOU, and their recordings are items of public record. Also, there are numerous court cases in which citizen recorded video or audio of police interaction with other citizens are placed in evidence.

imported post

DanM wrote:

astrogiblet wrote:

At the last OC picnic, Jim Simmons was there (he's a lawyer for those of you who don't know). And said generally, recordings without permission are not admissible in court. He said sometimes you can get a judge to allow it but generally not. Its not legal to record somebody without their permission.

So I wouldn't blow a ton of money on a recording device. Get a cheapo (with a good mic) and hope that you get a good judge.

Click to expand...

In Michigan, it is permissible for you to record a conversation you are a party to (whether in person or on a phone) without the knowledge or consent of others in the conversation.

In Michigan, it is NOT permissible to record a conversation you are NOT party to without the knowledge and consent of all parties to the conversation.

The above was explained to me by my attorney during a consultation for a matter in which I covertly recorded some conversations I was a party to.

So, it is legal to record somebody else without their permission, IF you are party to a conversation with them.

I don't know about admissibility in court of a recording of a conversation with a non-LEO.

I believe your recording of a conversation between you and a LEO, with our without his knowledge, would be admissible because LEO interactions with citizens generally are held to be public, not private, interactions.  After all, they almost always ARE recording their interaction with YOU, and their recordings are items of public record.  Also, there are numerous court cases in which citizen recorded video or audio of police interaction with other citizens are placed in evidence.

Click to expand...

+1 This is both my interpretation, as well as a lawyer friend's interpretation of the law. The Definition of "Eavesdropping" in the statute explicitly says "conversatoin of others." You can't eavesdrop on your own conversation.

imported post

Although I am inclined to concur with both of your interpretations, I think it remains an appropriate subject of debate as it could be easily argued and interpreted in many different ways. Also, no official ruling regarding its legality has been made.

That being said, I am at least moderately satisfied with my/our interpretation(s) enough to let sleeping dogs lie.

imported post

One last informational post:

from: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/michigan.html

Michigan

Any person who willfully uses any device to overhear or record a conversation without the consent of all parties is guilty of illegal eavesdropping, whether or not they were present for the conversation. Illegal eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c.

In addition, any individual who divulges information he knows, or reasonably should know, was obtained through illegal eavesdropping is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539e. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages also are sanctioned. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h.

The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication. This interpretation allows a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

The state Supreme Court stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a conversation “may not unilaterally nullify other participants’ expectations of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation” and that the overriding inquiry should be whether the parties “intended and reasonably expected that the conversation was private.” Therefore, it is likely that a recording party may not broadcast a recorded conversation without the consent of all parties. Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. 1999).

It is a felony to observe, photograph or eavesdrop on a person in a private place without the person’s consent. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d. A private place is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or surveillance, but not a place where the public has access. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539a.

Additionally, the Court of Appeals of Michigan held in 2006 that neither the secretary to a school district superintendent who allegedly circulated a facsimile sent to the superintendent, nor those who saw the facsimile, were liable under the state eavesdropping statute, since the facsimile machine was not used to record or access the messages sent to the superintendent. Vollmar v. Laura, 2006 WL 1008995 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (Unreported).

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

One last informational post:

from: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/michigan.html

Michigan

Any person who willfully uses any device to overhear or record a conversation without the consent of all parties is guilty of illegal eavesdropping, whether or not they were present for the conversation. Illegal eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c.

Click to expand...

Again I interpret to mean a third party recording a conversation. The bold implies this, by stating you can't record a conversation between two OTHER people even if you were there in person (as an observer and as a non-participant in the conversation).

imported post

The first paragraph from that article is inaccurate and inconsistent with the actual wording of the statute.

"Any person who willfully uses any device to overhear or record a conversation without the consent of all parties is guilty of illegal eavesdropping, whether or not they were present for the conversation. Illegal eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c."

Should in fact read:
Sure, it looks similar, but they fail to mention that the law states a private conversation. The term eavesdrop in this context is clearly defined in an earlier subsection of the statute:See my first post in this thread for links to the actual laws. My original interpretation still stands.

imported post

noclue wrote:

The first paragraph from that article is inaccurate and inconsistent with the actual wording of the statute.

"Any person who willfully uses any device to overhear or record a conversation without the consent of all parties is guilty of illegal eavesdropping, whether or not they were present for the conversation. Illegal eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c."

Should in fact read:

MCL §750.539c
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
​

Sure, it looks similar, but they fail to mention that the law states a private conversation. The term eavesdrop in this context is clearly defined in an earlier subsection of the statute:

MCL §750.539a(2)
(2) “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers.

​

See my first post in this thread for links to the actual laws. My original interpretation still stands.

Click to expand...

There's another part you should highlight (Corrected above): The Eavesdrop definition clearly states "Of others." Meaning a conversation which you're not a part of. So even if the conversation is private, if you're a part of the conversation, you can still record it.

imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:

There's another part you should highlight (Corrected above): ...

Click to expand...

Good lookin' out ziggity!

imported post

Sadly, in a court of law, legal or not, prosecuting attorneys can do or say whatever they can get away with. If the defense attorney does not object, it becomes permissable. Thus underlying a whole new discussion of problems... heh..

You'd have to defend it well should it ever be an issue.

@noclue - your research of federal, state, etc etc documentation would be a good resource to have and appreciated. In my opinion, there is a good chance it may be needed in the future.

imported post

http://www.rcaaudiovideo.com/product.aspx?product=416

Has anyone used this voice recorder?
It's on sale this week at K~Mart for $24.99.
It looks like it has the basic things like USB and it's automatic voice activated.
I'd be interested in this, I don't have a lot of money right now so I can't really afford the better more expensive ones I have seen recommended on this site.
If anyone here has used this one and can say whether it's junk or a good one, I would really appreciate that.

imported post

KittyBomb wrote:

http://www.rcaaudiovideo.com/product.aspx?product=416

Has anyone used this voice recorder?
It's on sale this week at K~Mart for $24.99.
It looks like it has the basic things like USB and it's automatic voice activated.
I'd be interested in this, I don't have a lot of money right now so I can't really afford the better more expensive ones I have seen recommended on this site.
If anyone here has used this one and can say whether it's junk or a good one, I would really appreciate that.

Click to expand...

I've never used it, but getting what you can afford is better than getting nothing.

512 MB is a goodly amount and should be plenty. It's go a flip-out USB jack so it's easy to plug into your computer. For $25 it's got a lot to offer. RCA is not what I'd consider a bad brand. Venator used one for a while (didn't have the features of this one), and I had the same one he did briefly. Venator didn't seem to be displeased with his, and the one your looking at looks to definitely be an upgrade.

It also looks like one that I've recently seen at Walmart for about $40.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10992762#ShortReviewTitleBar

If it isn't the same, then I don't know what the difference is.

You can also do a search for "VR5220" on Amazon.com, and read some customer reviews.

If it were me, I just buy it and test it by doing everything that I want it to do. If you like it great, if not then get it back within the return period.

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

KittyBomb wrote:

http://www.rcaaudiovideo.com/product.aspx?product=416

Has anyone used this voice recorder?
It's on sale this week at K~Mart for $24.99.
It looks like it has the basic things like USB and it's automatic voice activated.
I'd be interested in this, I don't have a lot of money right now so I can't really afford the better more expensive ones I have seen recommended on this site.
If anyone here has used this one and can say whether it's junk or a good one, I would really appreciate that.

Click to expand...

I've never used it, but getting what you can afford is better than getting nothing.

512 MB is a goodly amount and should be plenty. It's go a flip-out USB jack so it's easy to plug into your computer. For $25 it's got a lot to offer. RCA is not what I'd consider a bad brand. Venator used one for a while (didn't have the features of this one), and I had the same one he did briefly. Venator didn't seem to be displeased with his, and the one your looking at looks to definitely be an upgrade.

It also looks like one that I've recently seen at Walmart for about $40.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10992762#ShortReviewTitleBar

If it isn't the same, then I don't know what the difference is.

You can also do a search for "VR5220" on Amazon.com, and read some customer reviews.

If it were me, I just buy it and test it by doing everything that I want it to do. If you like it great, if not then get it back within the return period.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your response.
I will go to K~Mart tomorrow and get this one.
From the Wal~Mart site the only difference between the two looks to be $15.
I did read the reviews at Amazon and they seem to be mostly favorable.

Next thing to get, a good retention holster and some courage to OC my first time.

imported post

Kittyb, how about taking evidence of the kameapart price to Walmart and let them have your business, as they actually support gun owners and will more than likely match the price. Kmart does not provide handgun ammo and their affiliation with the Rosie o'dee types keeps people like me out of their stores. When Kmart starts selling hand gun ammo I'll spend more time in there.springerdave.

imported post

springerdave wrote:

Kittyb, how about taking evidence of the kameapart price to Walmart and let them have your business, as they actually support gun owners and will more than likely match the price. Kmart does not provide handgun ammo and their affiliation with the Rosie o'dee types keeps people  like me out of their stores. When Kmart starts selling hand gun ammo I'll spend more time in there.springerdave.

Click to expand...

You know why they stopped, right?

Michael Moore blamed and shamed them after it was made public that the Columbine shooters purchased their ammunition at a local K-Mart.

In response to the shaming, K-Mart stopped selling ammo and rifles. You know, because it's K-Mart's fault that all those people died... :uhoh:

imported post

There is sadness in several different ways on that one.springerdave.

imported post

springerdave wrote:

Kittyb, how about taking evidence of the kameapart price to Walmart and let them have your business, as they actually support gun owners and will more than likely match the price. Kmart does not provide handgun ammo and their affiliation with the Rosie o'dee types keeps people like me out of their stores. When Kmart starts selling hand gun ammo I'll spend more time in there.springerdave.

Click to expand...

I would if I had transportation, I can walk to K~Mart but the closest Wal~Mart is close to 8 miles from me round trip. Getting there by bus involves 3 buses each way. The one on 15 Mile.

I know Target matches prices, but don't know if they carry that voice recorder.
I haven't shopped K~Mart in a long time, getting to Wal~Mart has always been the reason I don't shop there more often.

I really hardly ever shop in retail stores much anyway. Just for food basically

imported post

I can understand your plight, sort-of. Here in Northern Mich I'm spoiled by having access to maybe too many vehicles that we own(older ones, newest is my wife's "04" HD. But still the nearest "big store" is over 40 miles away.springerdave.

imported post

noclue wrote:

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer and anything contributed by me is not to be taken as legal advice!

I may be wrong, but I interpret it differently.

MCL §750.539c: Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

MCL §750.539a: Sec. 539a.
As used in sections 539a to 539i:
(1) “Private place” means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access.
(2) "Eavesdrop" or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers.
(3) “Surveillance” means to secretly observe the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person observed.
(4) “Person” means any individual, partnership, corporation or association.
​

In this context I construe "public" to be a place where one can reasonably expect to be subject to surveillance, or a place to which the public or substantial group of the public have access.

Most encounters with police occur in "public places" as defined by this statute. So would discourse in a "public" place not be considered "public" discourse?

Additionally, a Michigan Court (Sullivan v. Gray) ruled that a participant in a private conversation may lawfully record it because the term "eavesdrop" refers only to overhearing or recording the private conversations of others. However, that is only court opinion and a Michigan Supreme Court ruling has not yet been made.

I certainly concede that your lawyer friend is probably more versed in regard to law than I am, I just thought that I would state my opinion (although opinion usually doesn't get you far in court).

sources:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28zj245d55vjsfqlaosoysae55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-539c

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28fyjaopaczn0vedrh3zg4wp55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-539a

I apologize in advance if this post deviates from the topic at hand, but I found it at least somewhat relevant. Please move it to a new thread if deemed necessary.

-Noclue

​

Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer either, but I am a legal scholar, and have experience in criminal prosecutions.

In MCL §750.539c, the key phrase is "without the consent of all parties thereto."

Thus the state would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, thatone party DIDN'T consent.This is an impossible burden, particularly if thedefendant was one of the parties to the conversation, and simply style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"alleges that they informed the other person that they were recording the conversation: this could be as simple as a statement that "I record all of my conversations," which would translate to "implied" consent by the other party. (And no, it doesn't have to be part of the recording-- that would be proof of innocence, not evidence of guilt by its absence).

Remember, the state would have to prove that the "victim" did not know that the conversation was being recorded. Essentially, then,the state must prove a negative, in which one person's word is taken over the other's-- i.e. the claim that the defendant NEVER ONCE informed the person of a certain fact-- EVER! It's certainly not the defendant's burden, to ensure that the all paties to a conversation never forget what the defendant informed them.

So this is just one of those laws which is basically unenforceable in such a situation, but serves to protect individual privacy in those "Linda Tripp" situations.

However also remember, that "proof" in a court of law, is simply whatever the court says is proof. And courts are known to abuse their discretion.

imported post

BradAnderson wrote:

I'm not a lawyer either, but I am a legal scholar, and have experience in criminal prosecutions.

In MCL §750.539c, the key phrase  is "without the consent of all parties thereto."

Thus the state would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that one party DIDN'T consent. This is an impossible burden, particularly if the defendant was one of the parties to the conversation, and simply style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"alleges that they informed the other person that they were recording the conversation: this could be as simple as a statement that "I record all of my conversations," which would translate to "implied" consent by the other party. (And no, it doesn't have to be part of the recording-- that would be proof of innocence, not evidence of guilt by its absence).

 Remember, the state would have to prove that the "victim" did not know that the conversation was being recorded. Essentially, then, the state must prove a negative, in which one person's word is taken over the other's-- i.e. the claim that the defendant NEVER ONCE informed the person of a certain fact-- EVER! It's certainly not the defendant's burden, to ensure that the all paties to a conversation never forget what the defendant informed them.

So this is just one of those laws which is basically unenforceable in such a situation, but serves to protect individual privacy in those "Linda Tripp" situations.

However also remember, that "proof" in a court of law, is simply whatever the court says is proof. And courts are known to abuse their discretion.

Click to expand...

The part you're missing here is twofold: both "private" and "of others." The entirety of your post is accurate for private conversation of people other than yourself.

If you're a part of the conversation, or the conversation happens in a place open to the public (even private property that's generally open to the public), then you may legally record it without consent of all present.

At least, that's my interpretation of this law.

imported post

You're right, since the term "eavesdrop" means that you are not a recognized party to the converstion.

Again, the law reads as follows:

MCL §750.539c: Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

So if you're a recognizedparty to the conversation, then it's not "eavesdropping."

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I was concerned about that-- just recently in fact.