"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

What, no link?

[richy freeway]

Link to source?

Re:What, no link?

[Chapter80]

From Wikipedia:

Two party consent states

Twelve states currently require that BOTH or ALL parties consent to the recording. These states are:

        * California
        * Connecticut
        * Florida
        * Illinois
        * Maryland
        * Massachusetts
        * Michigan
        * Montana
        * Nevada
        * New Hampshire
        * Pennsylvania
        * Washington

If you HATE that your state is on that list, get it changed! It's a wiki, you can change it yourself! :-)

Re:What, no link?

[FiloEleven]

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington

"Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there."

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!

[Shakrai]

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.

That's not a real improvement. Even a misdemeanor record will hurt your employment viability/ability to get a security clearance/ability to get a concealed carry permit (in some states)/ability to get professional licenses/etc/etc.

When I got charged with felonies I didn't commit they offered me a plea bargain down to a misdemeanor. I told them to go to hell (actually my lawyer did but that's another matter) and fought it all the way to the Grand Jury that refused to indict me. Cost me a lot more money but at least I came out of it without a criminal record.

Re:Lie to me!

[Dog-Cow]

Most of us don't care about private people recording people in public. I see people with video cameras and such all the time.

What we don't appreciate is someone with armed forces and the "Law" at their disposal doing the same thing.

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:Lie to me!

[Stanislav_J]

This is true, however, this is also the reason you don't piss off cops. Don't let them violate your rights, sure, but don't be a jerk. They will instantly acquire an almost da Vinci-like creativity for inventing reasons you've broken the law.

They don't need to "invent" anything. Why do you think all jurisdictions have those "catch-all" laws on the books, like "disorderly conduct" or "creating a disturbance" or "being a public nuisance." These laws are deliberately vague so that if you act like a dick when the cop stops you, he's got plenty of leeway to charge you with something.

weird mix

[prgrmr]

From http://www.articlesbase.com/national,-state,-local-articles/audio-recording-laws-in-the-us-431017.html: "The 12 states which definitely require all parties to a conversation to consent before it can be recorded are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington"

Possibly the weirdest mix of red, blue, coastal, and fly-over states.

!wiretap

[VisiX]

Why can't the legal system use common sense. Simply recording something is not the same as a wiretap. A wiretap implies access to conversations through some sort of technological loophole or exploit and is usually long term. If this is to be illegal then the law should refer to unlawful recording without consent.

IMHO, it doesn't make sense that it can be illegal to record a conversation that you are part of since you have been explicitly granted access to the information (the guy is F@#$ing talking to you).

Re:!wiretap

[blueg3]

The law never uses the term wiretap: Interception of wire and oral communications. Lawmakers can hardly be held responsible for the logical consequences of what other people choose to call things after the fact.

Re:!wiretap

[Theaetetus]

Why can't the legal system use common sense. Simply recording something is not the same as a wiretap. A wiretap implies access to conversations through some sort of technological loophole or exploit and is usually long term. If this is to be illegal then the law should refer to unlawful recording without consent.

The law in question is Chapter 272: Section 99. "Interception of wire and oral communications".
So, yeah, the legal system doesn't always use common sense, but this isn't a great example for you.

Also, you propose "unlawful recording without consent" - that's not right either. Massachusetts doesn't require consent to be recorded, just knowledge. So I can say to you "I'm recording this conversation," and you can say, "no, I don't consent, turn off the recorder," and it's irrelevant. I can keep recording and I can use the recording in any way I see fit. Your consent is immaterial.

Odious

[harvey the nerd]

Having such a recorder might be potentially important for memory impaired people on details and for the strong oral promises of con artists later denied.

Re:A concealed carry law...

[truthsearch]

I could tell you, but you'd have to stop recording this conversation.

Re:A concealed carry law...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

Re:A concealed carry law...

[TheRaven64]

The solution to this, your eminence, is to make fewer things that everyone does illegal, not to ban writing.

Re:"only 12 states"

[SydShamino]

12/50 = 24/100

Doesn't sound like exactly 20% to me. Closer to exactly 24% (or ~25%)

Am I missing something?

Canada? Western Europe? Iraq?

/ducks

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion