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

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

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