imported post
gluegun wrote:
I realize this is a bit out of scope for this thread, but I don't want anyone to get the idea that CT allows recording telephone calls you are on without notifying all parties. It doesn't.
With some exceptions (e.g. abusive phone calls) it is unlawful for anyone in the state of CT to record a telephone conversation without written/spoken consent of all parties involved, notifying all parties that the conversation is being recorded at the start of the recording, or playing an audible tone approximately every 15 seconds while recording. It is a civil offense only, so you could be sued for damages/court costs/attorney's fees by any party who took part in the recorded conversation who was not notified, but no criminal charges will be brought against you.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap925.htm#Sec52-570d.htm
It is not "illegal" to record a telephone call so long as you adhere to wiretapping statute and have consent by one person or are involved in the conversation. By not illegal, I mean that you cannot be brought up on criminal charges for doing it. The law I cited (53a-189) is from chapter 53 of the CT Gen. Statutes which is the penal code. The law you cited (52-570d) is in the portion that deals with civil actions. Their inconsistency is a problem and one that occurs all too often between civil and criminal statutes.
In particular, 53a-189 provides for a crime that is a class D felony. Section 52-570d simply provides the right of anyone aggrieved by your taping a phone call without their permission to sue you personally for any damages that they suffered from your taping.
"(c) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (a) of this section may bring a civil action in the Superior Court to recover damages, together with costs and a reasonable attorney's fee."
A 2003 case citing this law (
Lord v. Lord) found for the defendant because the plaintiff was not able to prove any monetary damages as a result of the taping of a phone call without his consent:
"The court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered actual damage as a result of the defendant's statutory violation. Accordingly, the court awards the plaintiff $ 1.00 as nominal damages, leaving only the issue of whether the plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees and costs."
. . .
"Having already found that the plaintiff did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered actual damage, the court finds not only that the plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys fees, but also that the plaintiff cannot prevail on counts three and four."
Now, I still would not go taping phone calls without permission. Why deal with the spectre of civil lawsuits when you can avoid them. That being said, if you are in public, record away.