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

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

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