Does anyone know.....(question for NV or California people)

All things outside of Burning Man.
Post Reply
User avatar
Fat SAM
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:46 am
Location: PDX
Contact:

Does anyone know.....(question for NV or California people)

Post by Fat SAM » Thu Aug 19, 2004 7:09 pm

Is it legal to record a phone conversation without asking the person?
Thanks to Addis, I had more free time.

User avatar
Stormy
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:03 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Does anyone know.....(question for NV or California peop

Post by Stormy » Thu Aug 19, 2004 7:13 pm

Fat SAM wrote:Is it legal to record a phone conversation without asking the person?
Legally, you must tell the caller that the call may be recorded or have a beep tone every (I think) 5 seconds or so. Whether it's admissable in court varies, but usually no. Remember the whole Monica Lewinsky thing and the tapes?
Be the change you seek in the world.

User avatar
theCryptofishist
Posts: 40313
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:28 am
Burning Since: 2017
Location: In Exile

Post by theCryptofishist » Fri Aug 20, 2004 9:39 am

In California you must inform the person on the other end. I don't know about Nevada.

MissNev
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:58 am
Location: Sparks, NV

Post by MissNev » Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:10 am

In Nevada, one person who is a party to the conversation must know that it is being taped (this is how the statute reads). Meaning, you are allowed to record your own conversation and you do not have to let the other person know. You cannot record a conversation between two (or more) people if none of them know that they are being recorded. I believe I know what you are asking FatSam, and yes, it is legal AND admissible in Court.

Honey
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:03 pm
Location: so cal.

Bugs

Post by Honey » Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:39 am

What about wireless phones and what falls on a scanner? The cops say thats public, cant you?
Honey.........

User avatar
Tancorix
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Post by Tancorix » Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:14 am

As for Nevada and California law, I have no clue. And not everyone has the equipment to but the beep on the line every 5 seconds. What I do is check my caller ID and if it's a person I know I want to record, I make sure they know I'm recording during the initial greeting. I also set my stopwatch for 3 minutes to remind me to warn them again.

I've had to use those tapes in Missouri, Colorado, and in Federal courts and haven't had any trouble. But as with all legal advice, if you're ass is on the line, make a call and seek professional help vs. getting layman's info from people like us. And if this involves child custody / children's protection services, then definitely call as you want to cover your ass from every angle possible.

User avatar
Stormy
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:03 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by Stormy » Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:28 am

Sorry I didn't clarify, I was speaking for California.
Be the change you seek in the world.

User avatar
Badger
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by Badger » Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:57 pm

Short answer: no.

Discuss this with the lawyer you end up working with Sam.
Desert dogs drink deep.

MissNev
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:58 am
Location: Sparks, NV

Post by MissNev » Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:32 am

Actually, Badger is wrong about this. In Nevada it is absolutely legal and admissible in Court to record your telephone conversations without disclosing to the other party that you are recording. I'll cite the Statute (as soon as I find it) and y'all can look it up. I do this for a living, and I know this one for a fact.

User avatar
Fat SAM
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:46 am
Location: PDX
Contact:

Post by Fat SAM » Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:01 pm

Miss NV, check your pm's.
Thanks to Addis, I had more free time.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:47 pm

NRS 179.465 Disclosure or use of intercepted communications.

1. Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, or 704.195 or 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2520, inclusive, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose the contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer or use the contents to the extent that the disclosure or use is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.

2. Any person who has received, by any means authorized by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, or 704.195 or 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2520, inclusive, or by a statute of another state, any information concerning a wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom intercepted in accordance with the provisions of NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, may disclose the contents of that communication or the derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any criminal proceeding in any court or before any grand jury in this state, or in any court of the United States or of any state, or in any federal or state grand jury proceeding.

3. An otherwise privileged wire or oral communication intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, or 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2520, inclusive, does not lose its privileged character.

4. When an investigative or law enforcement officer engaged in intercepting wire or oral communications as authorized by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, intercepts wire or oral communications relating to offenses other than those specified in the order provided for in NRS 179.460, the contents of the communications and the evidence derived therefrom may be disclosed or used as provided in subsection 1. The direct evidence derived from the communications is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding, but any other evidence obtained as a result of knowledge obtained from the communications may be disclosed or used as provided in subsection 2 when authorized or approved by a justice of the Supreme Court or district judge who finds upon application made as soon as practicable that the contents of the communications were intercepted in accordance with the provisions of NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, or 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2520, inclusive.

(Added to NRS by 1973, 1743; A 1983, 117; 1989, 658)

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:50 pm

http://leg.state.nv.us/NRS/search/NRSQuery.cfm

the Nevada legal search engine url...

MissNev
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:58 am
Location: Sparks, NV

Post by MissNev » Wed Aug 25, 2004 6:20 pm

That particular statute is for law enforcement. Here is the one I was citing from:

NRS 200.620 Interception and attempted interception of wire communication prohibited; exceptions.

1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, 209.419 and 704.195, it is unlawful for any person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire communication unless:

(a) The interception or attempted interception is made with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication; and

(b) An emergency situation exists and it is impractical to obtain a court order as required by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, before the interception, in which event the interception is subject to the requirements of subsection 3. If the application for ratification is denied, any use or disclosure of the information so intercepted is unlawful, and the person who made the interception shall notify the sender and the receiver of the communication that:

(1) The communication was intercepted; and

(2) Upon application to the court, ratification of the interception was denied.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:04 am

Alrighty then....

User avatar
samtzu
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
Contact:

Post by samtzu » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:54 am

...which means that you can record yourself talking to someone else, as long as you know you are recording yourself talking to someone else...

Sounds like that subsection was writen by Groucho Marx...

I'm still waiting for someone to say something about the 'sanity clause'...
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”