• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Law about recording conversations in Virginia

hometheaterman

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
227
Location
, ,
So we are all aware that you only need permission of one party involved to use a voice recorder to record a conversation. Any links to this law, or does anyone know what the code is? I want to have the law handy and read up a little more on it.
 

jermflux

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
62
Location
Norfolk, VA
Just be carefull when recording phone calls. The stae of the other party may have laws that contradict our own.
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com

Interesting, but the cited law seems to refer specifically to interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications. The entire "flavor" of this law seems to be oriented toward "electronic" communications, i.e., phone calls (landline or cellular), radio transmissions and similar wire-based or electronic transmissions.

What worries me is that is does not seem to adequately address the recording of an event in public by means of a video camera. It specifically uses the words "oral communication," which seems to me that by inference a voice recorder would be ok if one was a party to the conversation or had the permission of one of the parties to the conversation, even though the conversation was not by wire or electronic means, but rather in person.

I would feel far more confident in using a video/voice recorder if the law specifically sanctioned the use of such devices to record both audio and video of public activities where no one has a reasonable right to privacy.

The Maryland AG wrote a letter that specifically opined that the video and audio recording of a public event was not unlawful. I believe he did so after the motorcyclist event. If the People's Republic of Maryland is sufficiently enlightened to hold this opinion, then shouldn't Virginia?
 

t33j

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
1,384
Location
King George, VA
I'm not comfortable with any law that sanctions me to do anything. (Where does it say we're allowed to open carry?) In the case of 19.2-62 I read, "It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception." as, "This law shall not be construed as to prohibit..."
 
Last edited:

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
I'm not comfortable with any law that sanctions me to do anything. (Where does it say we're allowed to open carry?) In the case of 19.2-62 I read, "It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception." as, "This law shall not be construed as to prohibit..."

Except that it's not sanctioning you to do it, it is expressing an exception to a general prohibition.

Section A (clauses 1-4) makes it a Class 6 felony to record or intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication. Section B then modifies section A to include the exemption for one-party consent situations (among other things).

OC is different, in that there is no general prohibition on carrying a firearm. As such, it's not necessary to put in an exemption making it legal. Until something is made illegal, it is legal by default.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla

It's it's been an unclear area for years. The general perception is that if the call origionates in a prohibited state and is made to Virginia, and recorded in Virginia.... Virginia law supersedes the prohibited state.....

But if it originates in Virginia and is made to a prohibited state, the prohibited state may be able to prosecute.

There has been no case law that I know of in Virginia.

Videoing and recording in a public place in Virginia is clear. There is no expectation of privacy in Virginia, in public places. In other words, if it's public and you can hear it, you can record it.

Conversations in Private are different and would require single party consent. Even then, just the open air conversation is questionable as to prosecution.

There is a bill in the General Assembly this year to make it more severe (Class 6 Felony) to record without consent in a place with an expectation of privacy. The bill is being presented because there is very little concrete in Va about private space recording.
 
Last edited:

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Videoing and recording in a public place in Virginia is clear. There is no expectation of privacy in Virginia, in public places. In other words, if it's public and you can hear it, you can record it.

Peter, is there a cite for this, or an opinion letter from the AG? Or is it a situation like open carry, that what is not prohibited is legal?
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
Videoing and recording in a public place in Virginia is clear. There is no expectation of privacy in Virginia, in public places. In other words, if it's public and you can hear it, you can record it.
^^^ That.
Or is it a situation like open carry, that what is not prohibited is legal?
^^^ And that.

One, there is no expectation of privacy in ANY public venue.

Two, there is no law PROHIBITING the act and therefor, by default, the act is legal.

Also, I doubt very seriously VA would entertain extradition with another state under the argument that a citizen of the Commonwealth MAY have broken a law in that other state. Would that fall under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution?
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Peter, is there a cite for this, or an opinion letter from the AG? Or is it a situation like open carry, that what is not prohibited is legal?

There have been numerous Supreme court cases regarding privacy in Public places. I don't have the cites right now. There is a general photographers rights rule that is carried by most professional photo/video-graphers, including myself and has always been upheld to my knowledge.

The Photographer’s Right
About this Guide
Confrontations that impair the constitutional
right to make images are
becoming more common. To fight the
abuse of your right to free expression,
you need to know your rights to take
photographs and the remedies available
if your rights are infringed.
The General Rule
The general rule in the United States
is that anyone may take photographs
of whatever they want when they are
in a public place or places where they
have permission to take photographs.
Absent a specific legal prohibition
such as a statute or ordinance, you are
legally entitled to take photographs.
Examples of places that are traditionally
considered public are streets,
sidewalks, and public parks.
Property owners may legally prohibit
photography on their premises
but have no right to prohibit others
from photographing their property
from other locations. Whether you
need permission from property owners
to take photographs while on their
premises depends on the circumstances.
In most places, you may reasonably
assume that taking photographs
is allowed and that you do not
need explicit permission. However,
this is a judgment call and you should
request permission when the circumstances
suggest that the owner is likely
to object. In any case, when a property
owner tells you not to take photographs
while on the premises, you are
legally obligated to honor the request.
Some Exceptions to the Rule
There are some exceptions to the
general rule. A significant one is that
commanders of military installations
can prohibit photographs of specific
areas when they deem it necessary to
protect national security. The U.S.
Department of Energy can also prohibit
photography of designated
nuclear facilities although the publicly
visible areas of nuclear facilities are
usually not designated as such.
Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside
their homes.
Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully
from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers
Who Is Likely to Violate Your Rights
Most confrontations are started by
security guards and employees of
organizations who fear photography.
The most common reason given is
security but often such persons have
no articulated reason. Security is
rarely a legitimate reason for restricting
photography. Taking a photograph
is not a terrorist act nor can a
business legitimately assert that taking
a photograph of a subject in public
view infringes on its trade secrets.
On occasion, law enforcement officers
may object to photography but
most understand that people have the
right to take photographs and do not
interfere with photographers. They do
have the right to keep you away from
areas where you may impede their
activities or endanger safety. However,
they do not have the legal right
to prohibit you from taking photographs
from other locations.
They Have Limited Rights to Bother,
Question, or Detain You
Although anyone has the right to
approach a person in a public place
and ask questions, persistent and
unwanted conduct done without a
legitimate purpose is a crime in many
states if it causes serious annoyance.
You are under no obligation to explain
the purpose of your photography nor
do you have to disclose your identity
except in states that require it upon
request by a law enforcement officer.
If the conduct goes beyond mere
questioning, all states have laws that
make coercion and harassment criminal
offenses. The specific elements
vary among the states but in general it
is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear
that they may injure you, damage or
take your property, or falsely accuse
you of a crime just because you are
taking photographs.
Private parties have very limited
rights to detain you against your will
and may be subject to criminal and
civil charges should they attempt to
do so. Although the laws in most
states authorize citizen’s arrests, such
authority is very narrow. In general,
citizen’s arrests can be made only for
felonies or crimes committed in the
person’s presence. Failure to abide by
these requirements usually means
that the person is liable for a tort such
as false imprisonment.
They Have No Right to Confiscate
Your Film
Sometimes agents acting for entities
such as owners of industrial plants
and shopping malls may ask you to
hand over your film. Absent a court
order, private parties have no right to
confiscate your film. Taking your film
directly or indirectly by threatening to
use force or call a law enforcement
agency can constitute criminal offenses
such as theft and coercion. It can
likewise constitute a civil tort such as
conversion. Law enforcement officers
may have the authority to seize film
when making an arrest but otherwise
must obtain a court order.
Your Legal Remedies If Harassed
If someone has threatened, intimidated,
or detained you because you were
taking photographs, they may be
liable for crimes such as kidnapping,
coercion, and theft. In such cases, you
should report them to the police.
You may also have civil remedies
against such persons and their
employers. The torts for which you
may be entitled to compensation
include assault, conversion, false
imprisonment, and violation of your
constitutional rights.
Other Remedies If Harassed
If you are disinclined to take legal
action, there are still things you can do
that contribute to protecting the right
to take photographs.
(1) Call the local newspaper and see if
they are interested in running a story.
Many newspapers feel that civil liberties
are worthy of serious coverage.
(2) Write to or call the supervisor of
the person involved, or the legal or
public relations department of the
entity, and complain about the event.
(3) Make the event publicly known on
an Internet forum that deals with photography
or civil rights issues.
How to Handle Confrontations
Most confrontations can be defused
by being courteous and respectful. If
the party becomes pushy, combative,
or unreasonably hostile, consider calling
the police. Above all, use good
judgment and don’t allow an event to
escalate into violence.
In the event you are threatened with
detention or asked to surrender your
film, asking the following questions
can help ensure that you will have the
evidence to enforce your legal rights:
1. What is the person’s name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do
they intend to stop you if you decide
to leave? What legal basis do they
assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film,
what legal basis do they assert for the
confiscation?

published by:
Bert P. Krages II
Attorney at Law
6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97223
www.krages.com

Further, Homeland security has now realized videoing or photographing Federal Buildings in public is a right and cannot be considered a crime or evidence of a crime.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/nytdocs/docs/567/567.pdf

These are all image related but the same rules generally are accepted for video, Photo and audio except when being transmitted.



moz-screenshot-3.png
 
Last edited:

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
There have been numerous Supreme court cases regarding privacy in Public places. I don't have the cites right now. There is a general photographers rights rule that is carried by most professional photo/video-graphers, including myself and has always been upheld to my knowledge.


These are all image related but the same rules generally are accepted for video, Photo and audio except when being transmitted.

As a photographer I have been fighting this for a long time. +1
 
Top