"Wiretapping" Charges May Be Oddest Ever Recorded

netbuzz writes "Guy kicks up a fuss at a Massachusetts car-repair shop, employees call the police, guy allegedly gives them a hard time, too, and they charge the fellow with a variety of expectable charges: disorderly conduct, resisting arrest ... and 'unlawful wiretapping and possessing a device for wiretapping.' The device? A digital voice recorder. Massachusetts is one of only 12 states that prohibit the recording of a conversation unless all parties to it are aware it's being recorded."

Comments

Lie to me!

[mcgrew]

Illinois is one of theose twelve states. I refer to it as the "liar's law". There is no other reason I can't record a conversation in a public place except that the politicians don't want their lies revealed.

Well, maybe there are other secrets they want kept that aren't lies -- like their extramarital affairs. These 12 states, including mine, must have some incredibly immoral and hypocritical legislators.

However, I'll bet that the wiretapping charge doesn't stick. These days the cops make all sorts of spurious charges and the DA plea bargains the charges down. I'll bet he pays a few huundred bucks fine for a misdemeanor.

Oh wait, strike that -- gambling is iolegal here, too.

Re:Lie to me!

[Daniel_Staal]

Usually such a law is supported by the argument that an undercover police officer can't record what you say without you knowing about it.

I'm with you: I can see the ability to make such recordings being a great safety tool in some circumstances, but I can also see great potential for abuse.

Re:Video Surveillance Cameras?

[codegen]

Actually, the laws only apply to audio, video is just fine as long as there is no microphone.

You're wrong Shakrai.

[ClioCJS]

Linda Tripp would have been prosecuted, but she gave her tapes over in exchange for immunity.

And she was still indicted. By the democrats, even.