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]
      • 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.