[RemMod597]

On another forum, someone posted a link to this article.
I know it is not directly related to CCW, as it was used during a phone/office discussion, but could bad juju come down on a CCWer/OCer using a recording device, as is often recommended?

 

[xikle]

Short answer, probably. I'm no laywer though.

To be on the safe side just get permission, preferably written permission stating that it is ok to record the conversation.

 

[RemMod597]

Let's take this scenario: You are OCing and are stopped by the police. Do you inform the police that you are recording the interaction and request their permission to continue?

 

[cvhoss]

IANAL. (disclaimer posted)

It depends on the state you live in.

"Can We Tape?"

The individual in the link was in Massachusetts. Consent of both parties required.

Hoss

 

[MgoBlue]

Here in Kentucky, I can readily turn on my digital recorder without notifying the other party.

As an aside, that ACORN video of the Baltimore staffers offering advice to the "pimp" and "prostitute" was legal by Maryland standards, since it was a video recording and not simply an audio recording.

Know your state laws!

 

[Huzar]

IANAL. (disclaimer posted)

It depends on the state you live in.

"Can We Tape?"

The individual in the link was in Massachusetts. Consent of both parties required.

Hoss

Also there are some fed regulations regarding that as well.

 

[RemMod597]

IANAL. (disclaimer posted)

It depends on the state you live in.

"Can We Tape?"

The individual in the link was in Massachusetts. Consent of both parties required.

Hoss

Thanks for that link! Very informative!

 

[automatic slim]

When I was an LEO, I carried a recorder in my shirt pocket and recorded every interaction I had with the public. It was dept. issued and every other officer did the same.
The dash cams in police cars do the same thing and record the video aspect too.
The SCOTUS ruled that to record a phone conversation only one party has to be aware it's being recorded.

 

[cvhoss]

Also there are some fed regulations regarding that as well.

Federal regulations require only one (participating) party notification. The real gray area comes in when you cross state lines in a telephone conversation between a one party state and a two party state.

Hoss

 

[DaveH]

Also, INAL.

However, I have it on good authority that here in Virginia, such recording is legal, as long a one party to the conversation is aware that the conversation is being recorded.

It is a commonly recommended, by many in the RKBA community, for those carrying in certain jurisdictions.

I don't carry such a device, everyday. However, when traveling in come areas....

Check out "pen recorders" on the net.

 

[nova83tx]

Did the OP even read the article that he posted to the forum. Right in the article it told you in which states you had to inform all parties.

"In 12 states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington) you're required to get the permission of all parties on the line before making any kind of recording. In the rest of the country, any single member that's part of the conversation can legally record it without consent from the other parties."

I live in Texas, so no worries here, but I would imagine if I lived in MA where this happened, there would be an easy workaround. If I was at the auto service center, I would have said beginning the conversation : "I need to inform you that this conversation is being recorded on an audio device."

My guess is that this gives you their consent, then the guy would have been in the clear. If you need to get their explicit permission, you could change your phrasing too : "Would you mind if I record this conversation so I can remember all the details later?"

Know your state laws, simple as that.

 

[02PSD4ME]

Just say at the beginning of the conversation that is may be recorded for training purposes...

Every place I call has that at the start of the call.

 

[Eagleks]

It's BS.... here, it is legal to tape any conversation as long as "one" of the people in the conversation approve it. If you are in the conversation and recording it, obviously you approve it being taped.

I had an argument with 6 atty's in a case on this, and they all went and relooked up the law and came back and said "you're right". The tapes went into evidence and proved the State Agent was lying thru her teeth and committed perjury. She was given a chance to change her testimony or face perjury charges.... she changed her testimony and admitted everything she had said on the stand was a lie.

 

[Thumper]

I have an IC Chip Recorder attached to the visor of my vehicle and I fully intend to record any traffic stop I might ever have. :tongue:

 

[Bm7b5]

Did the OP even read the article that he posted to the forum. Right in the article it told you in which states you had to inform all parties.

"In 12 states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington) you're required to get the permission of all parties on the line before making any kind of recording.

Well...it depends. WA state is included in that list, but it is legal for a citizen to record his interaction with a police office performing his official duty without informing the officer (e.g. recording an arrest).

68 Wn. App. 802, 845 P.2d 1355, STATE v. FLORA

 

[rolyat63]

In Florida consent is not required but notification is. One just states I am recording this conversation. I would do it one the record even if I had to say it twice.

 

[diverdown247]

Exactly why you should know the recording laws of your own state. You never know when it might come in handy.

In a dispute such as this one, he definately needed a LEO present. The LEO could have granted permission to record and he could have notified the other party that it would be recorded, which gives the other party the chance to refuse the conversation.

And we all know that in court a refusal means you're hiding something.

 

[roberev]

My understanding is that in most of the two-party consent states, you have to have such consent for private conversations. Conversations with LEOs are not private. It's this way in Maryland, I know.

In Virginia, while you only need one party consent, lawyers are prohibited by state legal ethics ruling to make such recordings or even to inform their clients that such recordings are legal. I never understood why a rule would exist to prohibit lawyers from advising their clients about what was legal, but. . . .

Again, there's wisdom in the advice to check your own state laws. . . . and check them thoroughly.

Rob

 

[earlthegoat2]

Ive always thought it would be a good idea to have one at a job interveiw. My reason was to replay it and work on what I said. Others who I told this to said it might be illegal and others said you might be able to bring down some hurt on your interviewers if they did something wrong.

Either way I decided I am not going that route.

 

[mcgyver210]

Most every LEO I have talked with in the last few years has a audio recording device on them. So as far as I am concerned I have never been informed by one of them they are recording so I will always protect my self first period. My company vehicles are equipped with video & audio recording just like the LEOs. Besides the fact that it is a fact in some cases the facts are skewed in favor of the LEO since they are supposed to be the good guys even when they are in reality the bad guy.

I haven't trusted LEOs blindly in many years unfortunately.