This would indicate that recording the meeting would be legal.
I don't know, if you look at the facts and the reason they allowed the recording is very different then being in a secured area and meeting.
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20110318_S140296_84_140296_2011-03-18_or.pdf
As the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion correctly asserted, under the circumstances presented, “no reasonable juror could conclude that plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the recorded conversation” at issue. The following evidence compels this conclusion:
(1) the general locale of the meeting was the backstage of the Joe Louis arena during the hectic hours preceding a high-profile concert, where over 400 people, including national and local media, had backstage passes;
(2) the concert-promoter defendants were not receptive to the public-official plaintiffs’ requests
and, by all accounts, the parties’ relationship was antagonistic;
(3) the room in which plaintiffs chose to converse served as defendants’ operational headquarters with security personnel connected to defendants controlling the open doors;
(4) there were at least nine identified people in the room, plus unidentified others who were free to come and go from the room, and listen to the conversation, as they pleased;
(5) plaintiffs were aware that there were multiple camera crews in the vicinity, including a crew from MTV and a crew specifically hired by defendants to record backstage matters of interest;
(6) and video evidence shows one person visibly filming in the room where the conversation took
place while plaintiffs were present, thereby establishing that at least one cameraman was openly and obviously filming during the course of what plaintiffs have characterized as a “private conversation.” Given these facts, plaintiffs could not have reasonably expected that their conversation with defendants would “be free from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.”
Stone, 463 Mich at 563. To the contrary, the conversation strikes us as one that was uniquely defined by both “casual” and “hostile” “intrusion,” and “surveillance.” Accordingly, although a reasonable expectation of privacy is “generally” a question of fact, id. at 566, no such question reasonably exists in this case.
http://www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/01-11/140296/140296-Index.html
