Edward Peruta
Regular Member
imported post
Dam the torpedoes full speed ahead.
Dam the torpedoes full speed ahead.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Digital audio recorder in pocket earns man wiretapping charges
- Thread starter bennor
- Start date
uskrusader
Regular Member
imported post
So what's the verdict here?
I carry a voice recorder when I OC in CT, ...must I inform those I speak with if I decide to record them?
In public...no?
Private property...yes?
Are there different ruleswhen recording LEOs vs. public?
So what's the verdict here?
I carry a voice recorder when I OC in CT, ...must I inform those I speak with if I decide to record them?
In public...no?
Private property...yes?
Are there different ruleswhen recording LEOs vs. public?
gluegun
Regular Member
imported post
The law I've read applies only to those conversations taking place on the telephone. In that situation you must inform all parties.
Someone else mentioned a law about in person conversations. I don't have the cite, but their description seemed to indicate as long as you were physically present, only one part (you) had to know about it.
I'll see if I can find the law.
The law I've read applies only to those conversations taking place on the telephone. In that situation you must inform all parties.
Someone else mentioned a law about in person conversations. I don't have the cite, but their description seemed to indicate as long as you were physically present, only one part (you) had to know about it.
I'll see if I can find the law.
gluegun
Regular Member
imported post
Here is the text of the statutes that could apply:
By reading CGS 52-570d, it would seem very clear that except in limited circumstances, the average person cannot record a telephone conversation without notifying all parties using one of the methods in the statute.
CGS 53a-189 simply makes it illegal to use mechanical devices to hear a conversation to which you are not a party, or by engaging in wiretapping not in line with CGS 52-570d.
Neither of these would prohibit a person from using a, concealed or otherwise carried, recording device on their person to record conversations that could normally be heard without aid of a mechanical device.
Here is the text of the statutes that could apply:
By reading CGS 52-570d, it would seem very clear that except in limited circumstances, the average person cannot record a telephone conversation without notifying all parties using one of the methods in the statute.
CGS 53a-189 simply makes it illegal to use mechanical devices to hear a conversation to which you are not a party, or by engaging in wiretapping not in line with CGS 52-570d.
Neither of these would prohibit a person from using a, concealed or otherwise carried, recording device on their person to record conversations that could normally be heard without aid of a mechanical device.
uskrusader
Regular Member
imported post
gluegun wrote:
I don't see anything about "telephonic communications" posted under"Sec. 53a-189" quoted above. Did you leave something out?
What is "mechanical overhearing of a conversation"?Is this onlytelephonic?
How is Sec 53a-189 related to Sec. 52-570d?
gluegun wrote:
I don't see anything about "telephonic communications" posted under"Sec. 53a-189" quoted above. Did you leave something out?
What is "mechanical overhearing of a conversation"?Is this onlytelephonic?
How is Sec 53a-189 related to Sec. 52-570d?
imported post
uskrusader wrote:
IMHO - you are not eavesdropping if you are an active participant in the person-to-person, non-telephonic conversation.
Yata hey
uskrusader wrote:
Mechanical overhearing? Are you guilty of eavesdropping if you turn your hearing aids up?
IMHO - you are not eavesdropping if you are an active participant in the person-to-person, non-telephonic conversation.
Yata hey
uskrusader
Regular Member
imported post
That's pretty funny Grapeshot.
BTW all, Grapeshot is largely responsable for personnally motivating me to organize our first meeting at Hops back in February. A little encouragement can go a long way. Who would have known that such a meeting wouldturn intoour nowflourishing CCDL within just a few months.
My thanks to you sir!
That's pretty funny Grapeshot.
BTW all, Grapeshot is largely responsable for personnally motivating me to organize our first meeting at Hops back in February. A little encouragement can go a long way. Who would have known that such a meeting wouldturn intoour nowflourishing CCDL within just a few months.
My thanks to you sir!
imported post
uskrusader wrote:
I was the Rt. Rev. John Moses Browning that said, "Whenever two or more are gathered in my name...." wasn't it?
Yata hey
uskrusader wrote:
No credit due here - you led the charge and caused things to happen - that is true grass roots at its best - congratulations.:celebrate
I was the Rt. Rev. John Moses Browning that said, "Whenever two or more are gathered in my name...." wasn't it?
Yata hey
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
True on Michigan but a Michigan supreme court ruling stated that applied to a third party recording others. If you are recording yourself and another you are ok in Michigan
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
Sounds like the OP is:
1) News story based on a reality.
2) Further conclusions in the story based upon unreality.
Simply, FUD and misinformation. While there may be a grain of truth to the conclusions the article presents, it seems to be a bit inaccurate, unless it is only third-party conversations, and not fully applicable to conversations where the person recording is a party to the conversation.
Sounds like the OP is:
1) News story based on a reality.
2) Further conclusions in the story based upon unreality.
Simply, FUD and misinformation. While there may be a grain of truth to the conclusions the article presents, it seems to be a bit inaccurate, unless it is only third-party conversations, and not fully applicable to conversations where the person recording is a party to the conversation.
gluegun
Regular Member
imported post
53a-189 makes the violation of 52-570d a felony.
53a-189 makes the violation of 52-570d a felony.
FMJ
Regular Member
imported post
Unless the "verbal scuffle" described in the initial post occured over the phone, it is NOT wiretapping. I can't tell from the post whether or not he recorded a TELEPHONE conversation, and this could just be a pissed off officer levying charges that he knows won't stick. Otherwise, it is merely the recording of ambient sound which happened to include voices, and there is no law against that.
Unless the "verbal scuffle" described in the initial post occured over the phone, it is NOT wiretapping. I can't tell from the post whether or not he recorded a TELEPHONE conversation, and this could just be a pissed off officer levying charges that he knows won't stick. Otherwise, it is merely the recording of ambient sound which happened to include voices, and there is no law against that.
JUMPMASTER
Regular Member
imported post
In Massachusetts there is. And the OP was about a guy in MA that recorded a conversation that took place in MA.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=sjcslip/8429&invol=1
In Massachusetts there is. And the OP was about a guy in MA that recorded a conversation that took place in MA.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=sjcslip/8429&invol=1