Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp
You know there's going to be some civil liberties group pi$$ing and moaning about "unauthorized surveillance." And in some states, sadly, they're right. Can't tape a conversation without permission from all parties involved.
|
Summary of state laws for those who have posted so far in this thread, and indicated their place of residence. Sorry, GrumpUmp, I couldn't find a summary of the law on Tatooine.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3005: Interception of a wire or electronic communication by an individual who is not a party, without the consent of someone who is a party to the communication, is a felony. The electronic communications referred to in the statute include wireless and cellular calls. The overhearing of a conversation by an individual who is not present, without the consent of a party to that conversation, is also a felony. Both violations are classified as "class 5" felonies, which are the second least serious felonies in Arizona.
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3001.
Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2402(c)(4): Delaware's wiretapping and surveillance law specifically allows an individual to "intercept" (defined as acquiring the contents of a communication through a mechanical device) any wire, oral or electronic communication to which the individual is a party, or a communication in which any one of the parties has given prior consent, so long as the communication is not intercepted with a criminal or tortious intent.
However, another Delaware privacy law makes it illegal to intercept "without the consent of all parties thereto a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately, including private conversation." Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4). The wiretapping law is much more recent, and at least one federal court has held that, even under the privacy law, an individual can record his own conversations. United States v. Vespe, 389 F. Supp. 1359 (1975).
Minn. Stat. § 626A.02: It is legal for a person to record a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording — so long as no criminal or tortious intent accompanies the recording.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287: It is a Class H felony to intercept or disclose the contents of a wire, oral or electronic communication without the consent of at least one party to the communication, The statute defines wire communications to exclude the radio portion of a cordless telephone call that is transmitted between a cordless telephone handset and base unit. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287.
In addition, communications transmitted in a manner accessible to the general public, radio transmissions of aircrafts, ships or vehicles, and law enforcement radio communications, can be legally intercepted.
Texas Penal Code § 16.02: So long as a wire, oral or electronic communication — including the radio portion of any cordless telephone call — is not recorded for a criminal or tortious purpose, anyone who is a party to the communication, or who has the consent of a party, can lawfully record the communication and disclose its contents.
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Texas Code Crim. Pro. Art. 18.20.
In none of these it is illegal for a person to tape a conversation they are a party to, except for criminal or tortious intent.