Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

Expand Messages
  • david jones
    It will depend on how the recorder was used. If it was used to record a transmission such as a phone conversation, then it is a federal violation and will
    Message 1 of 22 , Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      It will depend on how the recorder was used. If it was used to record a "transmission" such as a phone conversation, then it is a federal violation and will fall under FCC guidelines. Often times investigators will use them as an "aid memoir" so to speak to assist them in writing a statement. If the statement is sworn it can be considered a pretty good piece of evidence providing the creditability of the person providing the statement is on the up and up. It usually all boils down to how the conversation was recorded, and of course, you should talk to a state licensed attorney for proper guidance. Hope that helps.

      Best Regards,

      Steve

      dawnek71 <DawnEk@...> wrote: Is it legal and adminisable in court to use a digital voice recorder in
      Minnesota. Where can I find the answer?
      TIA,
      Dawn






      ---------------------------------
      We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
      (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • ceecee lynn
      David, I used to have a boyfriend that had a combo 2-way radio and scanner in one. His unit was capable of hearing telephone conversations. Thanks to that unit
      Message 2 of 22 , Jul 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        David,
        I used to have a boyfriend that had a combo 2-way radio and scanner in one. His unit was capable of hearing telephone conversations. Thanks to that unit he had, we saved a life. My ex upstairs neighbor was planning to stab somebody, and my ex boyfriend and I over heard it, and gave the police heads up about it. My neighbor was then nabbed and arrested for disorderly conduct and breech of peace. Cindi.


        ---------------------------------
        Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
        with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Dawn Ek
        That absolutely helps. Thank you so much for a quick response! Take Care, Dawn Ek Arbonne Consultant 507.280.0579 507.421.0730 ID 16607737
        Message 3 of 22 , Jul 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          That absolutely helps. Thank you so much for a quick response!
          Take Care,


          Dawn Ek
          Arbonne Consultant
          507.280.0579
          507.421.0730
          ID 16607737
          dawnek@...
          We can't do much about the length of our lives, but we can do plenty about
          its width and depth... - Evan Esar

          -------Original Message-------

          From: david jones
          Date: 7/1/2007 11:04:59 AM
          To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

          It will depend on how the recorder was used. If it was used to record a
          transmission" such as a phone conversation, then it is a federal violation
          and will fall under FCC guidelines. Often times investigators will use them
          as an "aid memoir" so to speak to assist them in writing a statement. If the
          statement is sworn it can be considered a pretty good piece of evidence
          providing the creditability of the person providing the statement is on the
          up and up. It usually all boils down to how the conversation was recorded,
          and of course, you should talk to a state licensed attorney for proper
          guidance. Hope that helps.

          Best Regards,

          Steve

          dawnek71 <DawnEk@...> wrote: Is it legal and adminisable in
          court to use a digital voice recorder in
          Minnesota. Where can I find the answer?
          TIA,
          Dawn





          ---------------------------------
          We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
          (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Vicki Siedow
          Excuse me, but what in the heck does Arbonne, a beauty line, have to do with investigative work, and why are you here, getting advice from us? People, please
          Message 4 of 22 , Jul 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Excuse me, but what in the heck does Arbonne, a beauty line, have to do with
            investigative work, and why are you here, getting advice from us? People,
            please check who you're working with here.



            Vicki Siedow
            Siedow & Associates Investigations
            & Legal Support Services
            2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
            La Crescenta, CA 91214
            Los Angeles County
            CA PI License # 22852
            800.448.6431 toll free
            818.242.0130 local
            818.688.3295 fax
            <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/> http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com
            <mailto:Siedow@...> Siedow@...
            Member NCISS, IWWA

            Need economical legal help?
            Concerned about Identity Theft?
            Check the links on my site, or contact me directly.



            _____

            From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
            On Behalf Of Dawn Ek
            Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 1:31 PM
            To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?



            That absolutely helps. Thank you so much for a quick response!
            Take Care,


            Dawn Ek
            Arbonne Consultant
            507.280.0579
            507.421.0730
            ID 16607737
            dawnek@rapidwebllp. <mailto:dawnek%40rapidwebllp.com> com
            We can't do much about the length of our lives, but we can do plenty about
            its width and depth... - Evan Esar

            -------Original Message-------

            From: david jones
            Date: 7/1/2007 11:04:59 AM
            To: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

            It will depend on how the recorder was used. If it was used to record a
            transmission" such as a phone conversation, then it is a federal violation
            and will fall under FCC guidelines. Often times investigators will use them
            as an "aid memoir" so to speak to assist them in writing a statement. If the
            statement is sworn it can be considered a pretty good piece of evidence
            providing the creditability of the person providing the statement is on the
            up and up. It usually all boils down to how the conversation was recorded,
            and of course, you should talk to a state licensed attorney for proper
            guidance. Hope that helps.

            Best Regards,

            Steve

            dawnek71 <DawnEk@rapidwebllp. <mailto:DawnEk%40rapidwebllp.com> com> wrote:
            Is it legal and adminisable in
            court to use a digital voice recorder in
            Minnesota. Where can I find the answer?
            TIA,
            Dawn



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Vicki Siedow
            Once again, I need to know why Cindi is involved in a discussion of investigative policy. Vicki Siedow Siedow & Associates Investigations & Legal Support
            Message 5 of 22 , Jul 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Once again, I need to know why "Cindi" is involved in a discussion of
              investigative policy.



              Vicki Siedow
              Siedow & Associates Investigations
              & Legal Support Services
              2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
              La Crescenta, CA 91214
              Los Angeles County
              CA PI License # 22852
              800.448.6431 toll free
              818.242.0130 local
              818.688.3295 fax
              <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/> http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com
              <mailto:Siedow@...> Siedow@...
              Member NCISS, IWWA

              Need economical legal help?
              Concerned about Identity Theft?
              Check the links on my site, or contact me directly.



              _____

              From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
              On Behalf Of ceecee lynn
              Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 12:13 PM
              To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?



              David,
              I used to have a boyfriend that had a combo 2-way radio and scanner in one.
              His unit was capable of hearing telephone conversations. Thanks to that unit
              he had, we saved a life. My ex upstairs neighbor was planning to stab
              somebody, and my ex boyfriend and I over heard it, and gave the police heads
              up about it. My neighbor was then nabbed and arrested for disorderly conduct
              and breech of peace. Cindi.

              ---------------------------------
              Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
              with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • suesarkis@aol.com
              In a message dated 7/1/2007 11:24:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, SiedowAndAssociates@gmail.com writes: Excuse me, but what in the heck does Arbonne, a beauty
              Message 6 of 22 , Jul 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 7/1/2007 11:24:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                SiedowAndAssociates@... writes:

                Excuse me, but what in the heck does Arbonne, a beauty line, have to do with
                investigative work, and why are you here, getting advice from us? People,
                please check who you're working with here.
                and

                Once again, I need to know why "Cindi" is involved in a discussion of
                investigative policy.


                Vickie -

                Probably because Cindi is a member of this group. There was nothing wrong
                with her post nor the inquiry she previously posted. Perhaps you need to be
                reminded that --

                "Infoguys is a tool for the information professional, the attorney, the
                private investigator, and the general public..."

                and that the general rules clearly state,

                "Please keep postings on topic. This means that postings should relate to
                the area of investigations, law, and legal information..."

                She asked about the admissibility of some evidence in court and members
                responded. The last post was a polite "thank you".

                I hope this satisfies your inquiry.



                Sincerely yours,
                Sue
                ________________________
                Sue Sarkis
                Sarkis Detective Agency

                (est. 1976)
                PI 6564
                _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

                1346 Ethel Street
                Glendale, CA 91207-1826
                818-242-2505
                818-242-9824 FAX

                "one Nation under God"

                If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
                a military veteran !



                ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • ceecee lynn
                I am a member of this group to share my knowledge, as a private investigator for the crime stopper team of my vicinity. You specifically asked a investigation
                Message 7 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I am a member of this group to share my knowledge, as a private investigator for the crime stopper team of my vicinity. You specifically asked a investigation question and I gave my input in what I know about what you were asking the group. I am a very resourceful person and have other legal connections all over the U.S.A.. Cindi.


                  ---------------------------------
                  Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
                  Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Dawn Ek
                  Arbonne is the company I work for. I needed the advice I asked for for personal reasons. Don t get too worried. Maybe you should take off the legal support
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Arbonne is the company I work for. I needed the advice I asked for for
                    personal reasons. Don't get too worried. Maybe you should take off the
                    legal support services".?



                    Dawn Ek
                    Arbonne Consultant
                    ID 16607737
                    dawnek@...
                    We can't do much about the length of our lives, but we can do plenty about
                    its width and depth... - Evan Esar

                    -------Original Message-------

                    From: Vicki Siedow
                    Date: 7/2/2007 1:24:01 AM
                    To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

                    Excuse me, but what in the heck does Arbonne, a beauty line, have to do with
                    investigative work, and why are you here, getting advice from us? People,
                    please check who you're working with here.

                    Vicki Siedow
                    Siedow & Associates Investigations
                    & Legal Support Services
                    2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
                    La Crescenta, CA 91214
                    Los Angeles County
                    CA PI License # 22852
                    800.448.6431 toll free
                    818.242.0130 local
                    818.688.3295 fax
                    <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/> http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com
                    <mailto:Siedow@...> Siedow@...
                    Member NCISS, IWWA

                    Need economical legal help?
                    Concerned about Identity Theft?
                    Check the links on my site, or contact me directly.

                    _____

                    From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                    On Behalf Of Dawn Ek
                    Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 1:31 PM
                    To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

                    That absolutely helps. Thank you so much for a quick response!
                    Take Care,

                    Dawn Ek
                    Arbonne Consultant
                    507.280.0579
                    507.421.0730
                    ID 16607737
                    dawnek@rapidwebllp. <mailto:dawnek%40rapidwebllp.com> com
                    We can't do much about the length of our lives, but we can do plenty about
                    its width and depth... - Evan Esar

                    -------Original Message-------

                    From: david jones
                    Date: 7/1/2007 11:04:59 AM
                    To: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

                    It will depend on how the recorder was used. If it was used to record a
                    transmission" such as a phone conversation, then it is a federal violation
                    and will fall under FCC guidelines. Often times investigators will use them
                    as an "aid memoir" so to speak to assist them in writing a statement. If the
                    statement is sworn it can be considered a pretty good piece of evidence
                    providing the creditability of the person providing the statement is on the
                    up and up. It usually all boils down to how the conversation was recorded,
                    and of course, you should talk to a state licensed attorney for proper
                    guidance. Hope that helps.

                    Best Regards,

                    Steve

                    dawnek71 <DawnEk@rapidwebllp. <mailto:DawnEk%40rapidwebllp.com> com> wrote:
                    Is it legal and adminisable in
                    court to use a digital voice recorder in
                    Minnesota. Where can I find the answer?
                    TIA,
                    Dawn

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Bob Hrodey
                    ... This might help even more. What would help even more would be to have some specifics of the situation since you original post leaves open a wide range of
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dawn Ek wrote:
                      > That absolutely helps. Thank you so much for a quick response!
                      > Take Care,
                      >
                      >
                      > Dawn Ek
                      > Arbonne Consultant
                      > 507.280.0579
                      > 507.421.0730
                      > ID 16607737

                      This might help even more. What would help even more would be to have
                      some specifics of the situation since you original post leaves open a
                      wide range of possibilities from the obviously legal to the obviously
                      illegal. Do the smart thing, CONTACT a licensed attorney. Steve was
                      correct in that at least. As for the FCC, as he alluded to, they are the
                      LEAST of your worries. State statute and the Federal Electronic
                      Communications Privacy Act control this area of the law.

                      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.
                      Unlawful recordings, or disclosure of their contents if there is
                      knowledge or reason to know of the illegal acquisition, carry maximum
                      penalties of imprisonment for five years and fines of $20,000. In
                      addition, civil liability for violations statutorily can include three
                      times the amount of actual damages or statutory damages of up to
                      $10,000, as well as punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney
                      fees. Minn. Stat. § 626A.13.

                      Under state court interpretations, when an employee of a local
                      television station secretly videotaped a veterinarian treating a pet in
                      a private home for an investigative news report, the station did not
                      violate the wiretapping law because its employee was a party to the
                      communication and it had no tortious intent. Regardless of the fact that
                      allegations of tortious trespass existed, the court found the station's
                      intent was commercial, not tortious. /Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting,
                      Inc./, 526 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), /cert. denied/, 1998 Minn.
                      LEXIS 77 (Minn. Jan. 28, 1998).

                      A federal court has interpreted the statute to allow a parent or
                      guardian to consent to taping on behalf of a minor child. /Wagner v.
                      Wagner/, 64 F. Supp.2d 895 (D. Minn. 1999).

                      It is a misdemeanor to use any type of device for "observing,
                      photographing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds or events
                      through the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, a
                      tanning booth or any other place where a reasonable person would have an
                      expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their
                      intimate parts or the clothing covering the immediate area of the
                      intimate parts." Minn. Stat. § 609.746. /State v. Morris/, 644 N.W.2d
                      114 (Minn. App. 2002) (defendant who concealed video camera in bag and
                      used it to videotape up the skirts of females in department store
                      violated statute prohibiting interference with privacy).



                      --

                      Enjoy,

                      Bob
                      ________________________________________________________________
                      Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
                      Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
                      Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
                      Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
                      email: inquiry@... or rth@...
                      Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
                    • Betteye
                      Please post the answer to the list. I was told that in Michigan it is legal to record a conversation. The court upheld the recorded conversation. I don t know
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Please post the answer to the list. I was told that in Michigan it is legal to record a conversation.
                        The court upheld the recorded conversation. I don't know about phone recordings? I consider this the grey area. I have the understanding that you can record a phone conversation if you inform all parties that they are being recorded. Please tell how we could do a search to determine the legality of recordings.

                        I know a disbarred circuit court judge. I will try to locate her now be back with more on this issue.

                        thanks
                        Betteye
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: david jones
                        To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 11:42 AM
                        Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?


                        It will depend on how the recorder was used. If it was used to record a "transmission" such as a phone conversation, then it is a federal violation and will fall under FCC guidelines. Often times investigators will use them as an "aid memoir" so to speak to assist them in writing a statement. If the statement is sworn it can be considered a pretty good piece of evidence providing the creditability of the person providing the statement is on the up and up. It usually all boils down to how the conversation was recorded, and of course, you should talk to a state licensed attorney for proper guidance. Hope that helps.

                        Best Regards,

                        Steve

                        dawnek71 <DawnEk@...> wrote: Is it legal and adminisable in court to use a digital voice recorder in
                        Minnesota. Where can I find the answer?
                        TIA,
                        Dawn





                        ---------------------------------
                        We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
                        (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • suesarkis@aol.com
                        Betteye - I do not know the qualifications of whomever might have informed you that it is legal to record a conversation but I would consult with an attorney
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Betteye -


                          I do not know the qualifications of whomever might have informed you that it
                          is legal to record a conversation but I would consult with an attorney before
                          even thinking of recording in Michigan. Although I am not an attorney,
                          that is not how I read the law.


                          The statute below states that a private conversation legally cannot be
                          overheard or recorded without the consent of all participants. Illegal
                          eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two years and a
                          fine of up to $2,000.
                          In addition, any individual who divulges information he knows, or reasonably
                          should know, was obtained through illegal eavesdropping is guilty of a felony
                          punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000.
                          Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539e. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages
                          also are sanctioned. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h.
                          The exact statute reads:
                          750.539c Eavesdropping upon private conversation. Sec. 539c.
                          Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation
                          and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without
                          the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or
                          procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a
                          felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years
                          or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
                          Even parents have limitations -
                          Under the Michigan statute, a parent may not vicariously consent to a
                          recording for a minor child. Williams v. Williams, 603 N.W. 2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App.
                          1999).
                          It is a felony to observe, photograph or eavesdrop on a person in a private
                          place without the person's consent. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d. A private
                          place is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or
                          surveillance, but not a place where the public has access. Mich. Comp. Laws §
                          750.539a.
                          And then you have at least one contrary court decision:
                          The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only
                          to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an
                          interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to record
                          that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray,
                          324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
                          Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL recordings.

                          Sincerely yours,
                          Sue
                          ________________________
                          Sue Sarkis
                          Sarkis Detective Agency

                          (est. 1976)
                          PI 6564
                          _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

                          1346 Ethel Street
                          Glendale, CA 91207-1826
                          818-242-2505
                          818-242-9824 FAX

                          "one Nation under God"

                          If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
                          a military veteran !



                          ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Bob Hrodey
                          ... Okay, here are TWO excellent resources that will give you some GUIDANCE. You still need to run your particular situation past a lawyer that you are paying
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Betteye, wrote the following at or about 7/2/2007 9:46 AM:
                            > Please post the answer to the list. I was told that in Michigan it is legal to record a conversation.
                            > The court upheld the recorded conversation. I don't know about phone recordings? I consider this the grey area. I have the understanding that you can record a phone conversation if you inform all parties that they are being recorded. Please tell how we could do a search to determine the legality of recordings.
                            >
                            > I know a disbarred circuit court judge. I will try to locate her now be back with more on this issue.
                            >
                            > thanks
                            > Betteye

                            Okay, here are TWO excellent resources that will give you some
                            GUIDANCE. You still need to run your particular situation past a lawyer
                            that you are paying to get a solid legal opinion. This area of the law
                            is in a constant state of change as new technologies emerge and as PI's,
                            private citizens, news reporters, police, etc. do new and incredibly
                            stupid things with it.

                            http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

                            http://www.poynter.org/resource_center/

                            And, Bettye, you're kidding us about getting information from a
                            disbarred judge, right? LOL!


                            --
                            Enjoy,

                            Bob
                            _______________________________________________________________________
                            Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
                            Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
                            Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
                            Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
                            e-mail: inquiry@... or rth@...
                            Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
                          • Jim Parker
                            Not quite, Sue. Michigan is one of those odd exceptions which looks on
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              <<<< Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL
                              recordings. >>>>


                              Not quite, Sue. Michigan is one of those odd exceptions which looks on the
                              surface to be an all party state, but case law has decreed otherwise.

                              In order to make sense of the statute, you must first read how Michigan
                              defines "eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping"

                              750 §539a(2))

                              (2) “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or
                              transmit any part of the PRIVATE DISCOURSE OF OTHERS without the permission
                              of all persons engaged in the discourse. [emphasis added]

                              The key phrase in there is "private discourse of others"

                              Michigan courts have held that any conversation you are a party to is not a
                              conversation "of others" and can therefore be recorded.

                              If, however, you were listening (and/or recording) the conversation on an
                              extension phone, but were not a party to the actual conversation, even if
                              one of the parties knew of the recording, that would violate the statute.

                              In other words, parties can record their OWN conversations, but if a third
                              party records it or is involved in the recording of it, it's illegal.

                              I believe you'll find the relevant case law in: Sullivan v Gray, 324 N.W.2d
                              58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), which concludes:

                              "We believe the statutory language, on its face, unambiguously excludes
                              participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the
                              subject conversation to "the private discourse of others". The statute
                              contemplates that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not
                              otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on."

                              It's not a particularly well written law.

                              Jim



                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                              On Behalf Of suesarkis@...
                              Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:14 PM
                              To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

                              Betteye -


                              I do not know the qualifications of whomever might have informed you that it

                              is legal to record a conversation but I would consult with an attorney
                              before
                              even thinking of recording in Michigan. Although I am not an attorney,
                              that is not how I read the law.


                              The statute below states that a private conversation legally cannot be
                              overheard or recorded without the consent of all participants. Illegal
                              eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two
                              years and a
                              fine of up to $2,000.
                              In addition, any individual who divulges information he knows, or reasonably

                              should know, was obtained through illegal eavesdropping is guilty of a
                              felony
                              punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000.
                              Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539e. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages

                              also are sanctioned. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h.
                              The exact statute reads:
                              750.539c Eavesdropping upon private conversation. Sec. 539c.
                              Any person who is present or who is not present during a private
                              conversation
                              and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without
                              the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or
                              procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is
                              guilty of a
                              felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2
                              years
                              or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
                              Even parents have limitations -
                              Under the Michigan statute, a parent may not vicariously consent to a
                              recording for a minor child. Williams v. Williams, 603 N.W. 2d 114 (Mich.
                              Ct. App.
                              1999).
                              It is a felony to observe, photograph or eavesdrop on a person in a private
                              place without the person's consent. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d. A private
                              place is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion
                              or
                              surveillance, but not a place where the public has access. Mich. Comp. Laws
                              §
                              750.539a.
                              And then you have at least one contrary court decision:
                              The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only

                              to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an
                              interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to
                              record
                              that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray,

                              324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
                              Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL recordings.

                              Sincerely yours,
                              Sue
                              ________________________
                              Sue Sarkis
                              Sarkis Detective Agency

                              (est. 1976)
                              PI 6564
                              _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/ <http://www.sarkispi.com/> )

                              1346 Ethel Street
                              Glendale, CA 91207-1826
                              818-242-2505
                              818-242-9824 FAX

                              "one Nation under God"

                              If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
                              a military veteran !

                              ************************************** See what's free at
                              http://www.aol.com <http://www.aol.com>

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Jim Parker
                              Is there any
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                <<<< what in the heck does Arbonne, a beauty line, have to do with
                                investigative work, and why are you here, getting advice from us? >>>>


                                Is there any particular reason why they shouldn't? I thought one of the
                                purposes of this list was to give advice?

                                Jim



                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                                On Behalf Of Vicki Siedow
                                Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 2:23 AM
                                To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

                                Excuse me, but what in the heck does Arbonne, a beauty line, have to do with
                                investigative work, and why are you here, getting advice from us? People,
                                please check who you're working with here.

                                Vicki Siedow
                                Siedow & Associates Investigations
                                & Legal Support Services
                                2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
                                La Crescenta, CA 91214
                                Los Angeles County
                                CA PI License # 22852
                                800.448.6431 toll free
                                818.242.0130 local
                                818.688.3295 fax
                                <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/ <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/> >
                                http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com <http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com>
                                <mailto:Siedow@... <mailto:Siedow%40LawAndOrder.com> >
                                Siedow@... <mailto:Siedow%40LawAndOrder.com>
                                Member NCISS, IWWA

                                Need economical legal help?
                                Concerned about Identity Theft?
                                Check the links on my site, or contact me directly.

                                _____

                                From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
                                [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> ]
                                On Behalf Of Dawn Ek
                                Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 1:31 PM
                                To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
                                Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

                                That absolutely helps. Thank you so much for a quick response!
                                Take Care,

                                Dawn Ek
                                Arbonne Consultant
                                507.280.0579
                                507.421.0730
                                ID 16607737
                                dawnek@rapidwebllp. <mailto:dawnek%40rapidwebllp.com> com
                                We can't do much about the length of our lives, but we can do plenty about
                                its width and depth... - Evan Esar

                                -------Original Message-------

                                From: david jones
                                Date: 7/1/2007 11:04:59 AM
                                To: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

                                It will depend on how the recorder was used. If it was used to record a
                                transmission" such as a phone conversation, then it is a federal violation
                                and will fall under FCC guidelines. Often times investigators will use them
                                as an "aid memoir" so to speak to assist them in writing a statement. If the
                                statement is sworn it can be considered a pretty good piece of evidence
                                providing the creditability of the person providing the statement is on the
                                up and up. It usually all boils down to how the conversation was recorded,
                                and of course, you should talk to a state licensed attorney for proper
                                guidance. Hope that helps.

                                Best Regards,

                                Steve

                                dawnek71 <DawnEk@rapidwebllp. <mailto:DawnEk%40rapidwebllp.com> com> wrote:
                                Is it legal and adminisable in
                                court to use a digital voice recorder in
                                Minnesota. Where can I find the answer?
                                TIA,
                                Dawn

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Jim Parker
                                Although you ve received responses ranging from excellent to the
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  <<<< Is it legal and adminisable in court to use a digital voice recorder
                                  in Minnesota. >>>>


                                  Although you've received responses ranging from excellent to the truly
                                  preposterous, the correct answer is: "it depends."

                                  Your inquiry begs more questions than it does answers. Everything would
                                  depend on exactly how you planned on using the recording device, who would
                                  be aware of the recording and a variety of other factors.

                                  With the little you have provided, it would be impossible for anyone to give
                                  you a "yes" or "no" answer.

                                  Jim



                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                                  On Behalf Of dawnek71
                                  Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 12:31 AM
                                  To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

                                  TIA,
                                  Dawn
                                • suesarkis@aol.com
                                  Jim, Betteye and all - The question is not about court opinion, it is about published law. My answer does not dispute the fact that some courts have handed
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Jim, Betteye and all -

                                    The question is not about court opinion, it is about published law. My
                                    answer does not dispute the fact that some courts have handed down opinions that
                                    such activity is permissible, but the published law continues to state that the
                                    activity is illegal - this has not changed in spite of what some state
                                    courts may have said.

                                    The comments about judicial opinion cloud the original question and serve
                                    little more than confusing information. In contrast, I stuck with the original
                                    question and I wholeheartedly stand by my NON-LAWYER answer. The published
                                    law in Michigan deems this activity "illegal".

                                    It is also important to note that Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct.
                                    App. 1982), as quoted above, was "ONLY ONE COURT'S OPINION" and is not
                                    representative of broad authority for everyone to follow. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE
                                    THE WORDING OF THE LAW and obviously the lawmakers have had plenty of time
                                    since 1982 to change the law had they agreed.

                                    The state Supreme Court stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a
                                    conversation "may not unilaterally nullify other participants' expectations
                                    of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation" and that the overriding
                                    inquiry should be whether the parties "intended and reasonably expected that
                                    the conversation was private." Therefore, it is likely that a recording party
                                    may not broadcast a recorded conversation without the consent of all
                                    parties. Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. 1999).

                                    Although Jim pointed out (as did I) decisions that appear to support the
                                    notion that one can, in some instances, record conversations, and while some
                                    courts have obviously conflicted in their opinions as to the permissiveness of
                                    the law, Betteye's question was related to what the law “says”. Courts do not
                                    always support the letter of the law which often leads to statutory changes,
                                    but this has not happened as of yet.
                                    As it currently stands the law is still clear that one cannot record a
                                    conversation in the State of Michigan, even if he is a consenting party, when
                                    other parties to the conversation have not given consent.

                                    I maintain that the definition of “eavesdropping” extends to recording
                                    conversations to which you are a part based on the Supreme Court ruling.

                                    “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or
                                    transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all
                                    persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other
                                    provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning
                                    interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications
                                    common carriers.”

                                    Ambiguity abounds in Michigan !!


                                    Sincerely yours,
                                    Sue
                                    ________________________
                                    Sue Sarkis
                                    Sarkis Detective Agency

                                    (est. 1976)
                                    PI 6564
                                    _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

                                    1346 Ethel Street
                                    Glendale, CA 91207-1826
                                    818-242-2505
                                    818-242-9824 FAX

                                    "one Nation under God"

                                    If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
                                    a military veteran !



                                    ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Jim Parker
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      <<<< It is also important to note that Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), as quoted above, was "ONLY ONE COURT'S OPINION" and is not representative of broad authority for everyone to follow. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW >>>>

                                      And no one would expect it to. It's not the court's job to change the wording of the law, it's the court's job to INTERPRET the wording of the law.

                                      As it is, in Sullivan v. Gray, the appeals court noted that:

                                      "We believe the statutory language, on its face, UNAMBIGUOUSLY EXCLUDES PARTICIPANT RECORDING from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to "the private discourse of others".

                                      Even in the case you mention, Dickerson v. Raphael, the court noted that Dickenson's daughter MAY HAVE BEEN WITHIN HER RIGHTS TO RECORD THE CONVERSATION HERSELF, but it was the involvement of a third party (Sally Jessy Raphael's sound technician) making the actual recording that violated the statute.

                                      You'll note that that's precisely what I said in my earlier response (see my previous post below).

                                      So your statement of " Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL recordings." is entirely incorrect.

                                      Jim


                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Parker
                                      Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:33 PM
                                      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

                                      <<<< Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL
                                      recordings. >>>>


                                      Not quite, Sue. Michigan is one of those odd exceptions which looks on the
                                      surface to be an all party state, but case law has decreed otherwise.

                                      In order to make sense of the statute, you must first read how Michigan
                                      defines "eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping"

                                      750 §539a(2))

                                      (2) “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or
                                      transmit any part of the PRIVATE DISCOURSE OF OTHERS without the permission
                                      of all persons engaged in the discourse. [emphasis added]

                                      The key phrase in there is "private discourse of others"

                                      Michigan courts have held that any conversation you are a party to is not a
                                      conversation "of others" and can therefore be recorded.

                                      If, however, you were listening (and/or recording) the conversation on an
                                      extension phone, but were not a party to the actual conversation, even if
                                      one of the parties knew of the recording, that would violate the statute.

                                      In other words, parties can record their OWN conversations, but if a third
                                      party records it or is involved in the recording of it, it's illegal.

                                      I believe you'll find the relevant case law in: Sullivan v Gray, 324 N.W.2d
                                      58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), which concludes:

                                      "We believe the statutory language, on its face, unambiguously excludes
                                      participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the
                                      subject conversation to "the private discourse of others". The statute
                                      contemplates that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not
                                      otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on."

                                      It's not a particularly well written law.

                                      Jim
                                    • Bob Hrodey
                                      ... Not to mention the fact that case law controls, not the statutory law. The law is a living thing and constantly evolves by case law. If you doubt it, try
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Jim Parker, wrote the following at or about 7/2/2007 1:36 PM:
                                        > <<<< It is also important to note that Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), as quoted above, was "ONLY ONE COURT'S OPINION" and is not representative of broad authority for everyone to follow. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW >>>>
                                        >
                                        > And no one would expect it to. It's not the court's job to change the wording of the law, it's the court's job to INTERPRET the wording of the law.
                                        >
                                        > As it is, in Sullivan v. Gray, the appeals court noted that:
                                        >
                                        > "We believe the statutory language, on its face, UNAMBIGUOUSLY EXCLUDES PARTICIPANT RECORDING from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to "the private discourse of others".
                                        >
                                        > Even in the case you mention, Dickerson v. Raphael, the court noted that Dickenson's daughter MAY HAVE BEEN WITHIN HER RIGHTS TO RECORD THE CONVERSATION HERSELF, but it was the involvement of a third party (Sally Jessy Raphael's sound technician) making the actual recording that violated the statute.
                                        >
                                        > You'll note that that's precisely what I said in my earlier response (see my previous post below).
                                        >
                                        > So your statement of " Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL recordings." is entirely incorrect.

                                        Not to mention the fact that case law controls, not the statutory law.
                                        The law is a living thing and constantly evolves by case law.

                                        If you doubt it, try arguing a case in a court using outdated law and
                                        watch the judge (if they catch you) hand you your head. I've seen it
                                        happen to clients/friends who missed a cite while Sheperdizing a case.
                                        It ain't pretty.

                                        Granted, one Court's ruling (provided it's a trial court) does not set
                                        precedent anywhere but that particular court. An appellate court,
                                        however does set precedent in that district and the state supreme court
                                        sets it for the state, etc. Again, these can be treacherous waters in
                                        which to tread and your best bet is to pay for a legal opinion based
                                        upon your factual situation. The only think black and white in the law
                                        what's printed in the law books and that, as you know, is subject to
                                        varying opinions depending on where in the state you are and at what
                                        point in time.


                                        --
                                        Enjoy,

                                        Bob
                                        _______________________________________________________________________
                                        Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
                                        Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
                                        Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
                                        Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
                                        e-mail: inquiry@... or rth@...
                                        Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
                                      • ceecee lynn
                                        I m not eavesdropping on anybody. I m sharing what I know about the law. I m a bystander learning law. Is that a crime to learn something for my country? No.
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I'm not eavesdropping on anybody. I'm sharing what I know about the law. I'm a bystander learning law. Is that a crime to learn something for my country? No. It's not. If you don't want me in here, I'll cancel out my subscription with you people and that's that. I don't need trouble makers making any legal problems for me when I only wanted to learn something. You people are very rude. Do you know that. And I certainly don't appreciate the idle threats of imprisonment, because I'll refer this site over to my local detective bureau for further investigations. I'm a snitch for the law. I support the law. Ok? My God. You people are nutty. Good bye. I don't need your abusive talk. Cindi.


                                          ---------------------------------
                                          TV dinner still cooling?
                                          Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Bob Hrodey
                                          ... Did I miss something? Don t seem to recall anyone really coming down all that hard on Cindi. Guess this is Darwin in Action -- Enjoy, Bob
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Jul 3, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            ceecee lynn, wrote the following at or about 7/2/2007 2:57 PM:
                                            > I'm not eavesdropping on anybody. I'm sharing what I know about the law. I'm a bystander learning law. Is that a crime to learn something for my country? No. It's not. If you don't want me in here, I'll cancel out my subscription with you people and that's that. I don't need trouble makers making any legal problems for me when I only wanted to learn something. You people are very rude. Do you know that. And I certainly don't appreciate the idle threats of imprisonment, because I'll refer this site over to my local detective bureau for further investigations. I'm a snitch for the law. I support the law. Ok? My God. You people are nutty. Good bye. I don't need your abusive talk. Cindi.
                                            >

                                            Did I miss something? Don't seem to recall anyone really coming down
                                            all that hard on Cindi.

                                            Guess this is "Darwin in Action"<g>

                                            --
                                            Enjoy,

                                            Bob
                                            _______________________________________________________________________
                                            Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
                                            Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
                                            Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
                                            Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
                                            e-mail: inquiry@... or rth@...
                                            Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
                                          • Robert Bryan
                                            Bob, Guess your right. I haven t seen anyone coming down that hard either. Oh well, thats life. Have a great 4th everyone, be safe & careful out there. Night
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Jul 3, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Bob,

                                              Guess your right. I haven't seen anyone coming down that hard either. Oh well, thats life.

                                              Have a great 4th everyone, be safe & careful out there.

                                              Night Owl Investigations www.nightowlinvestigations.com

                                              Robert Bryan
                                              Owner/Investigator Night Owl Investigations
                                              P.O. Box 19137
                                              Panama City Beach, FL 32417
                                              nightowl1@...
                                              gulfcoastpi@... tel:
                                              fax:
                                              mobile: 850-522-8010
                                              850-522-0704
                                              850-527-0215




                                              Want to always have my latest info? Want a signature like this?



                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.