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
    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 1 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
      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 2 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
        <<<< 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 3 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
          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 4 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
            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 5 of 22 , Jul 3, 2007
              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 6 of 22 , Jul 3, 2007
                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.