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
      Once again, I need to know why Cindi is involved in a discussion of investigative policy. Vicki Siedow Siedow & Associates Investigations & Legal Support
      Message 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.