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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Jul 1 11:46 PM
    • 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 2 of 22 , Jul 2 3:18 AM
      • 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 3 of 22 , Jul 2 4:43 AM
        • 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 4 of 22 , Jul 2 5:44 AM
          • 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 5 of 22 , Jul 2 7:46 AM
            • 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 6 of 22 , Jul 2 9:13 AM
              • 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 7 of 22 , Jul 2 9:15 AM
                • 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 8 of 22 , Jul 2 9:32 AM
                  • 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 9 of 22 , Jul 2 9:35 AM
                    • 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 10 of 22 , Jul 2 9:51 AM
                      • 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 11 of 22 , Jul 2 10:19 AM
                        • 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 12 of 22 , Jul 2 11:36 AM
                          • 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 13 of 22 , Jul 2 11:54 AM
                            • 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 14 of 22 , Jul 2 12:57 PM
                              • 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 15 of 22 , Jul 3 2:16 PM
                                • 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 16 of 22 , Jul 3 4:28 PM
                                  • 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.