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