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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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.