Centerfield

I'm a strong believer in "one party consent". While courtesy may dictate I should inform you that I am recording our conversation, the law should not. Two party consent requirements are a terrific boon to abusive police officers, voilent spouses, and other nasty people.

I found it interesting that it wasn't the camera that got him in trouble, but that the camera could (and did) record audio. Apparently it's OK to videotape the police acting badly, as long as you don't have audio!

I'm a strong believer in "one party consent". While courtesy may dictate I should inform you that I am recording our conversation, the law should not.

So the fact that you know you're recording me having sex in my bedroom so you can post the video on the web is sufficient? Ummm, no.

That would fall under other statutes, Jannia. Many others, including federal. In that situation you'd have solid civil and criminal complaints.

This guy taped the police at his front door and in his yard, told them the camera was there and was on, and had signs posted saying the property (his!) was under surveillance.

I live in a one party state: NY. I was sued once by a lowly client and his two shady lawyers. The case involved this jerk suing me three years after the fact having paid me for work well done(directed by both his lawyer number one and a top engineer who later was my star witness). The first lawyer called me after I countersued (pro se) and threatened me with endless pain and cost. One vulgarity after another. I moved to have him removed from the case ( he had originally directed my work) and included him in my abridged counter suit for damages. As part of my evidence, I included transcripts of his conversation along with an affidavit of a former MP who listened in on the conversation. The judge was amused. The lawyer told the judge I couldn't use such recordings against a LAWYER. She told him I could and a week later, he withdrew. As part of my settlement, I was not to discuss the terms or take any action ever again against both lawyers or the jerk plaintiff. I owe this victory in part to a one party law. It is an asymmetrical power for the unempowered. To prevent misuse, conversations should be disclosed only in court, otherwise everyone will be posting private conversations. As far as this administration, the government must support one party law for Big Brother to operate.

Anyway, the audio part is interesting. Many states allow a property owner to videotape tenants but not allow them to record their tenant’s audio. The laws are being changed depending on the State.

The situation Tully originally states is absurd. These selective applications aggravates the "people" and makes many preconditioned to blast perceived transgressions of their civil liberties.

What if the wife found the video in her blood splattered house and it showed her husband being surprised by no-hello cops (who had the wrong address) and shooting at the home invaders. A barrage of fire kills her husband. The court says the tape is not allowed as evidence and she is fined for violating the police's rights? Sounds like Brazil the movie to me. The scenarios will become realities the more time you give it.

I once was called in by a company that was having some serious trouble with their "partner," a MAJOR pharma company. I have a non-disclosure on that one too, so I'll skip names and details other than to note they were doing something very malicious and illegal to my client, trying to drive them out of business so they could take the market. At a come-to-Jesus meeting Big Exec told us they intended to keep doing it, and kill us off (commercially, that is) to get out of the partnership and keep us from coming back as a competitor. And they told us there was diddly we could do about it.

Problem: When the meeting started, I took several items out of my briefcase and put them on the conference table in plain view. Notebook, laptop, pocket recorder. TURNED ON, of course.

Three days later, Big Exec got a certified transcript. Big Exec called and threatened to have me thrown in Club Fed for Many Many Years for felony wiretapping. I just smiled and suggested he consult with his legal staff. The meeting was held in MY state, which is a one-party state, and the recorder was in plain view anyhow. He could argue with witnessses, but not with the tape.

Three weeks later, we had a rather hefty settlement in hand, a month later I helped them sell the company to another Big Pharma company for twice what it was (IMHO) really worth. My bonus was...considerable.

Dammit all too hell if this topic doesn't make me nostalgic for RMN and the boys! Lordy how I miss them. HRH would make Rove look like a preschooler...

Oh those were the days...

I agree completely with the notion that 2-party laws tend to protect the wrong people. This has bothered me for a long time. I think Pat's 100% correct here.

Anyone have a list of which states are 1-party and which are 2-party?

Poor old Dick didn't figure out in time that you should NEVER tape things you weren't perfectly willing to have come out in court.

In any case, taping things outside on your own property, with written notices posted and with oral warnings that the tape is rolling, is hardly Nixonian. Gannon's video system covered only his yard and front door, not the interior of the house. The sheer brass of the officers in the Gannon case is what gets me. I took a quick run through NH law on wiretapping, and it looks likely to me they initially charged Gannon as harrasment, and kept the charges in place in the hopes of making the tape inadmissible in a lawsuit against them.

Gannon should assert his freedom of the press rights. He has the same right to tape the police in public as any TV reporter does, and his property is in plain view of the public.

Not handy, Brian. While federal law is one-party, your state may not be, and where you're doing it counts.

Also worth mentioning is that wiretapping laws are generally geared towards the interception of electronic communications--mostly telephone, but also email and such. So almost all of what you find on the 'net will be about phone tapping. NH law (and many other states) extends that to audiotaping someone in person, which is what got Gannon arrested. That his system also recorded audio is what gave the police the edge to arrest him for "wiretapping."

Great one Tully. Several magnitudes above my civil disturbance.

Not at all. I was being well-paid out of the gate and had nothing to lose but a reference and some professional pride. And in the circumstances it was FUN--I was fighting for a deserving underdog against a powerful and despicable bully. The bonus was a measure of the client's gratitude at winning for them with creative jiu-jitsu in what looked like a pretty hopeless situation. I wasn't expecting it. Certainly not at the level they provided it, I wasn't.

But MY ass wasn't on the line, and my fees were assured either way. That changes the whole picture. Completely different pucker factor. Mostly I looked stupid and let them knot the noose and toss it over the branch on their own. They even put their neck in it. I just asked 'em if they wanted us to slap the horse or not. :-)

I see your point. My situation had scenarios that were more dangerous for me. Had it not been for my expert witness and the profoundly unprofessional behavior of two lawyers (plus one party law), I could have been looking at $40,000 minimum damages plus State fines. What I learned is that unless you are in Supreme Court (which I tried to knock the case up to), lawyers and plaintiffs can lie at will. I was shocked that perjury (even when identified in the original suit and subsequent filings) is not a real danger for parties in under-$40,000 civil cases. Therefore, there is another reason for recording conversations. The only way to confront lies is recording the truth and presenting it as evidence in court. My ultimate satisfaction was watching this jerk spend $40,000 plus over twenty-eight appearances and lose screaming at his lawyers after the judge demanded a settlement on my terms.

At one point I presented the photos of my exploratory deconstruction and reconstruction work (which I kept on file). These two hundred pictures helped refute the plaintiff’s claims. I also showed the plaintiff had destroyed what he thought were all existing copies AFTER I filed discovery. I was frustrated to learn that despite PROVING THIS, there are few penalties for such conduct short of their losing the case. Again, had I lost, I would have been responsible for an additional $40,000 in legal expenses making some lying rogue able to win a $100,000+ against a lesser opponent with an incredibly bogus suit. One party law gives the average Joe some fairer playing field. It also helps having a lawyer or two as friends as well as a former MP*. Tougher penalties for frivolous cases would help too. It is also extremely costly to appeal. You can't represent yourself (unless you are a lawyer) in appeals court. If I could have recorded the judges in my case (five altogether), you would be crying with laughter. Keeping a straight face at times in court was tough.....

* Just for the record –Julian Korda WAS the former military narcotic investigator who helped my case. He was a good soul who was waiting desperately for Congress to issue the money for his compensation. The VA Hospital had decided Julian was suffering from Gulf War syndrome that had put his chemistry in chaos. Before the war, he was a bull, after, a man struggling to keep it together. He had more that $400,000 due him from the government, but his medical problems were too much and he passed away a few years ago. Despite his raw deal, he never gave up, never trashed the DOD, never regretted going to the Gulf or being an America. His passing saddened us all. Julian’s father was the head of FBI linguistics at the NYC Federal building, so I doubt Julian was afforded less than the same quick response our government has given everyone suffering from the effects of the first Gulf War. He told me he was one of the first responders who pulled the injured from the Saddam scud hit on a barracks in Saudi Arabia that killed more than twenty service personal (so much for that vaunted Patriot missile system circa ’91). Whatever he was exposed to in the Gulf left him in hormonal chaos and made pre-existing conditions (which the DOD knew about) lethal. Julian had left a good job to volunteer for action after the DOD told him they were short on MP’s. No one even offered to pay for the storage of his belongings while he served on quick notice. Such are the tribulations of America’s heroes.