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

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

Expand Messages
  • Jim Parker
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.