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

RE: [infoguys-list] Is recording conversation from a police scanner illegal ?

Expand Messages
  • alvinsbabycakes
    Jim, Nothing was done deliberatly as I stated in the previous post as far as my daughter knew they were all getting along fine and doing what was in the best
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 26, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim,
      Nothing was done deliberatly as I stated in the previous post as far as my daughter knew they were all getting along fine and doing what was in the best intrest of my grandson who is autistic. I understand deliberately taping or tapping a phone is against the law as it should be, however; planning to deliberatly drug a 4 year old autistic boy so he would sleep I would think one would consider this child endangerment, not to mention child abuse. I just didn't understand the judge allowing this as evidence and the police stating it was against the law and threatening to arrest not only my daughter but me, and I had nothing to do with any of this! So in conclusion I was confussed due to the judges decision and the opinion of the police. Thank you very much for answering my post I appreciate this very much.
      Take Care, Be Safe, and have a Wonderful Day.!
      AlvinsBabyCakes

      Jim Parker <Jim@...> wrote:
      <<< I believe she said that they were in two different apartments in the
      same complex or building. >>>


      You're right, Vicki; I missed that part when I first glanced over it.

      Anyhooo... under Michigan law, your daughter's husband committed the felony
      crime of willful eavesdropping. He has also committed the further felony
      crime of divulging the illegally obtained conversations to your daughter.
      If the ex's wife is smart enough to pursue it, your daughter's husband AND
      your daughter could be facing serious criminal charges and extensive civil
      liabilities including injunctive relieve and monetary damages (including
      punitive).

      However, Michigan law does not prohibit the admissibility of evidence
      obtained in such a manner.

      That's why the police will not act on the taped conversations, but the judge
      has allowed them as evidence.

      It's also illegal to manufacture a scanner that allows the monitoring of
      cordless phone frequencies or is easily modified to do so, but the liability
      on that falls on the seller, not the buyer. If, however, your daughter's
      husband modified the scanner himself so he could monitor a cordless phone,
      then that's also a federal crime.

      I'd say at this stage, your daughter and her current husband have been
      lucky, so it might be an idea just to shut up and not make a legal issue of
      this.

      Jim



      -----Original Message-----
      From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of Vicki Siedow
      Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:58 PM
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is recording conversation from a police scanner
      illegal ?

      I believe she said that they were in two different apartments in the same
      complex or building. I sure wouldn't want to live that near my ex. She
      needs an attorney and a moving van.

      "My daughter and her husband and the kids live in the
      same apartment building as her ex husband and his wife."

      Was the scanner altered in any way? Did they overhear the conversation
      accidentally, or were they trying to tune them in? I think since they
      specifically recorded it they do have a problem, but I'd have done the same
      thing if it was my kid.

      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
      >
      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 Jim Parker
      Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:50 AM
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is recording conversation from a police scanner
      illegal ?

      How far away from the ex-husband's house did this monitoring take place?

      As in, if you (and the scanner) were in Michigan, where was the husband's
      ex-wife when she was making her phone calls? Another state? Another city?

      Jim

      -----Original Message-----
      From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com

      [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com

      ]
      On Behalf Of alvinsbabycakes
      Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:47 AM
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com

      Subject: [infoguys-list] Is recording conversation from a police scanner
      illegal ?

      Hello,

      I have read all the previous posts about recordings of conversations in
      Michigan, however; I didn't see anything about recording from the public
      airways like a conversation which comes through a police scanner? Is
      this also illegal? I live in Michigan and my daughter and her new
      husband after returning from a visit with his parents in which he also
      brought more of his personal belongings home with them , one being a
      small police scanner. After returning home he plugged the scanner in and
      soon they heard my daughters ex-husbands wife coming through their
      scanner. In the conversation my daughter learned that her ex's wife was
      planning on illegally drugging my daughter's little boy who is 4 and
      autistic. I won't repeat this girls comments about my grandson but it
      makes one sick to think anyone could be so cruel. Now my daughter went
      to the court and filled a motion on parenting time and also a PPO
      against her ex husbands wife for abusing my grandson. The judge after
      hearing my daughter accepted the taped conversations as evidence 1,2,
      and 3 along with transcripts of each tape entered as evidence. My
      daughter also got a PPO against her ex's wife for threatening my
      daughters life several times.

      The small town they live in has a small city police department, and even
      though this girl has violated the PPO's against her, the police refuse
      to do anything?? My daughter and her husband and the kids live in the
      same apartment building as her ex husband and his wife.

      Question is I guess if this is illegal also to tape a conversation that
      is coming through a police scanner from this girl talking on a cordless
      telephone, how can the judge accept this as entered evidence against my
      daughters ex husbands wife, refer CPS to do a throughal investigation ,
      put PPO'S on her and set up yet another hearing today at 1:00 P.M. due
      to her claiming she is not guilty of making any threats or abusing the
      little 4 year old boy? Yet , when last in court in front of this same
      judge she admitted her violent temper she even yelled at the judge!! So
      today as I understand it the prosecuting attorney will also be present.
      I don't understand this either? But I would like to know if there is a
      law code about the recording of a telephone conversation coming through
      a police scanner through the public airways? The police say it's illegal
      to record the conversations, the judge accepts them as evidence? So I am
      really confussed! Any help would be so greatly appreciated, especially
      if I can get it before court this afternoon, so I at least know what is
      legal and what is illegal and where this may go. Thank you very very
      much for any and all help!

      AlvinsBabyCakes

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








      ---------------------------------


      To subscribe, send an empty message to infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      To unsubscribe, send a message to infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


      ---------------------------------


      Yahoo! Groups Links






      ---------------------------------
      Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • RMRI, Inc.
      Excellent points, John. And I think your post pretty well sums up this situation, without too much confusion as to the technicalities presented in this
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 27, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Excellent points, John. And I think your post pretty well sums up this
        situation, without too much confusion as to the technicalities presented in
        this scenario.



        Personally, it is my contention that the law was intentionally broken by the
        recording party, the fact that someone took the time to use a recording
        device to record the scanner conversations and has an admitted knowledge of
        who the person was that this person was recording, demonstrates that they
        knowingly intended to eavesdrop on the conversation of a person that they
        were not a direct party to (i.e. first party or second party in a 2 party
        conversation). .



        Typically when the Police inform you that this is illegal, it is because
        they are too lazy to build a case with the information you have. If that
        were not the case, then the Police would actually charge you with a crime
        since you gave a confession, instead of simply "cautioning" you that what
        you did was illegal. So, perhaps you should be thankful for lazy Police
        Officers in this case?



        And all of this is to say, you still may be able to get this information
        admitted into court, as John said and I concur.







        Rick.



        From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
        On Behalf Of John Huheey
        Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:57 AM
        To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: Is recording conversation from a police scanner
        illegal ?



        Esteemed colleagues

        I think you need to consult with an attorney on this one, because
        there are so many issues involved. But, based on my experience,
        illegally obtained evidence usually will be admitted as evidence in
        court, as long as it can be properly authenticated and the party who
        obtained it is not a law enforcement official. That does not mean
        that the party who obtained the evidence will not be charged civilly
        or criminally by another party (example: Linda Tripp). I recall many
        cases where, as a law enforcement officer, we received illegally
        recorded conversations (tapes made by third parties), and then were
        able to use them as evidence in cases because we (the LEO's) had not
        recorded the conversation ourselves.

        John Huheey
        Veritas Investigations
        Dayton, OH

        --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
        <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "alvinsbabycakes"
        <alvinsbabycakes@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Hello,
        >
        > I have read all the previous posts about recordings of
        conversations in
        > Michigan, however; I didn't see anything about recording from the
        public
        > airways like a conversation which comes through a police scanner? Is
        > this also illegal? I live in Michigan and my daughter and her new
        > husband after returning from a visit with his parents in which he
        also
        > brought more of his personal belongings home with them , one being a
        > small police scanner. After returning home he plugged the scanner
        in and
        > soon they heard my daughters ex-husbands wife coming through their
        > scanner. In the conversation my daughter learned that her ex's wife
        was
        > planning on illegally drugging my daughter's little boy who is 4 and
        > autistic. I won't repeat this girls comments about my grandson but
        it
        > makes one sick to think anyone could be so cruel. Now my daughter
        went
        > to the court and filled a motion on parenting time and also a PPO
        > against her ex husbands wife for abusing my grandson. The judge
        after
        > hearing my daughter accepted the taped conversations as evidence
        1,2,
        > and 3 along with transcripts of each tape entered as evidence. My
        > daughter also got a PPO against her ex's wife for threatening my
        > daughters life several times.
        >
        > The small town they live in has a small city police department, and
        even
        > though this girl has violated the PPO's against her, the police
        refuse
        > to do anything?? My daughter and her husband and the kids live in
        the
        > same apartment building as her ex husband and his wife.
        >
        > Question is I guess if this is illegal also to tape a conversation
        that
        > is coming through a police scanner from this girl talking on a
        cordless
        > telephone, how can the judge accept this as entered evidence
        against my
        > daughters ex husbands wife, refer CPS to do a throughal
        investigation ,
        > put PPO'S on her and set up yet another hearing today at 1:00 P.M.
        due
        > to her claiming she is not guilty of making any threats or abusing
        the
        > little 4 year old boy? Yet , when last in court in front of this
        same
        > judge she admitted her violent temper she even yelled at the
        judge!! So
        > today as I understand it the prosecuting attorney will also be
        present.
        > I don't understand this either? But I would like to know if there
        is a
        > law code about the recording of a telephone conversation coming
        through
        > a police scanner through the public airways? The police say it's
        illegal
        > to record the conversations, the judge accepts them as evidence? So
        I am
        > really confussed! Any help would be so greatly appreciated,
        especially
        > if I can get it before court this afternoon, so I at least know
        what is
        > legal and what is illegal and where this may go. Thank you very very
        > much for any and all help!
        >
        > AlvinsBabyCakes
        >





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • George Rodriguez
        John, The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree only applies to LEO, as you stated. I too, had many pieces of evidence/information that if I had obtained as a LEO in
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 27, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          John,

          The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree only applies to LEO, as you stated. I too, had many pieces of evidence/information that if I had obtained as a LEO in the manner they were obtained would have been thrown so far out of the courthouse, they still may not have landed.



          George Rodriguez
          Clear Source Research, LLC
          Webb City, MO 64870
          866-596-5627 Phone
          866-553-2888 Phone
          213-232-3711 Fax

          ---------------------------------
          Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jim Parker
          Message 4 of 21 , Sep 27, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            <<<< But, based on my experience, illegally obtained evidence usually will
            be admitted as evidence in court, as long as it can be properly
            authenticated and the party who obtained it is not a law enforcement
            official. >>>>


            John,

            You should note that under federal law, intercepted communications are
            specifically prohibited from being used as evidence in any trial, hearing or
            proceeding (see 18 USC §2515) and to do so, or endeavor to do so is a felony
            crime punishable with up to 5 years in prison.

            United States v. Wuliger provides a good example. Wuliger was an attorney
            representing the husband in a divorce case. During deposition and the
            divorce hearing, Wuliger used transcripts and tapes of illegally obtained
            communications of the wife as evidence. He was subsequently prosecuted by
            the US Attorney under 18 USC §2511(1)(d) which makes it a crime to "use" or
            "endeavor to use" any part of an illegally obtained communication.

            The district court fined Wuliger $5,000 and placed him on two year probation
            on the condition that he serve a 30-day home detention and surrender
            his license to practice law. In January, 1992, the Supreme Court of Ohio
            indefinitely suspended him.

            I believe his conviction was overturned on appeal, but only on a
            technicality (that the jury had not been properly instructed that Wuliger
            must have known or had reason to know that the conversations were recorded
            illegally.)

            He was saved from liability in a civil suit later filed by the wife, only
            because the parties original divorce decree included a broad release of the
            parties and their lawyers from a series of rights, benefits, and
            liabilities. The language of the release, the court determined, would
            include a civil suit brought by the wife for violation of The Wiretap Act.

            Jim



            -----Original Message-----
            From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
            On Behalf Of John Huheey
            Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:57 AM
            To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: Is recording conversation from a police scanner
            illegal ?

            Esteemed colleagues

            I think you need to consult with an attorney on this one, because
            there are so many issues involved. But, based on my experience,
            illegally obtained evidence usually will be admitted as evidence in
            court, as long as it can be properly authenticated and the party who
            obtained it is not a law enforcement official. That does not mean
            that the party who obtained the evidence will not be charged civilly
            or criminally by another party (example: Linda Tripp). I recall many
            cases where, as a law enforcement officer, we received illegally
            recorded conversations (tapes made by third parties), and then were
            able to use them as evidence in cases because we (the LEO's) had not
            recorded the conversation ourselves.

            John Huheey
            Veritas Investigations
            Dayton, OH

            --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
            <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "alvinsbabycakes"
            <alvinsbabycakes@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Hello,
            >
            > I have read all the previous posts about recordings of
            conversations in
            > Michigan, however; I didn't see anything about recording from the
            public
            > airways like a conversation which comes through a police scanner? Is
            > this also illegal? I live in Michigan and my daughter and her new
            > husband after returning from a visit with his parents in which he
            also
            > brought more of his personal belongings home with them , one being a
            > small police scanner. After returning home he plugged the scanner
            in and
            > soon they heard my daughters ex-husbands wife coming through their
            > scanner. In the conversation my daughter learned that her ex's wife
            was
            > planning on illegally drugging my daughter's little boy who is 4 and
            > autistic. I won't repeat this girls comments about my grandson but
            it
            > makes one sick to think anyone could be so cruel. Now my daughter
            went
            > to the court and filled a motion on parenting time and also a PPO
            > against her ex husbands wife for abusing my grandson. The judge
            after
            > hearing my daughter accepted the taped conversations as evidence
            1,2,
            > and 3 along with transcripts of each tape entered as evidence. My
            > daughter also got a PPO against her ex's wife for threatening my
            > daughters life several times.
            >
            > The small town they live in has a small city police department, and
            even
            > though this girl has violated the PPO's against her, the police
            refuse
            > to do anything?? My daughter and her husband and the kids live in
            the
            > same apartment building as her ex husband and his wife.
            >
            > Question is I guess if this is illegal also to tape a conversation
            that
            > is coming through a police scanner from this girl talking on a
            cordless
            > telephone, how can the judge accept this as entered evidence
            against my
            > daughters ex husbands wife, refer CPS to do a throughal
            investigation ,
            > put PPO'S on her and set up yet another hearing today at 1:00 P.M.
            due
            > to her claiming she is not guilty of making any threats or abusing
            the
            > little 4 year old boy? Yet , when last in court in front of this
            same
            > judge she admitted her violent temper she even yelled at the
            judge!! So
            > today as I understand it the prosecuting attorney will also be
            present.
            > I don't understand this either? But I would like to know if there
            is a
            > law code about the recording of a telephone conversation coming
            through
            > a police scanner through the public airways? The police say it's
            illegal
            > to record the conversations, the judge accepts them as evidence? So
            I am
            > really confussed! Any help would be so greatly appreciated,
            especially
            > if I can get it before court this afternoon, so I at least know
            what is
            > legal and what is illegal and where this may go. Thank you very very
            > much for any and all help!
            >
            > AlvinsBabyCakes
            >
          • RMRI, Inc.
            I think the below scenario is a fair representation of how evidence that may be obtained illegally by a private citizen can still be ruled as admissible ...
            Message 5 of 21 , Sep 27, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I think the below scenario is a fair representation of how evidence that may
              be obtained illegally by a private citizen can still be ruled as admissible
              in court:







              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              ---------------------------------------------

              Police blotter" is a weekly News.com report on the intersection of
              technology and the law.

              What: Husband uses keystroke logger to spy on wife's suspected
              relationship with another woman, who sues to prevent the records from
              being used in the divorce case.

              When: U.S. District Judge Thomas Rose in the southern district of
              Ohio rules on February 14.

              Outcome: Rose denies request for injunction preventing the electronic
              documents from being introduced as evidence in the divorce case.

              What happened, according to court documents:
              Once upon a time, tempestuous divorces might have included one spouse
              snooping through the other's private correspondence or eavesdropping
              on private conversations taking place in another room.

              That kind of snooping was, for the most part, entirely legal. But
              when the same kind of snooping happens in electronic form, it can be
              a federal crime. (Last year, Police Blotter covered the case of the
              Garfinkel divorce. Another case involving spyware arose a year
              earlier.)

              That doesn't seem to be the case here. Jeffery Havlicek filed for a
              divorce from his wife Amy Havlicek in Ohio's Greene County Common
              Pleas Court. Amy had been chatting through e-mail and instant
              messages with a woman named Christina Potter. Jeffery suspected that
              Potter and his wife, Amy, were romantically involved in a
              lesbian "relationship of some sort," his attorney would later say in
              a legal brief.

              Around that time, Jeffery installed some sort of monitoring software
              on the family computer--a Dell Precision 220 that was located in the
              guest room, was used by multiple family members including teenage
              children, and did not have a password on it most of the time. (There
              is disagreement about why the software was installed; Jeffery says it
              was in part because of his daughter's increased use of the Internet.)

              Jeffery has admitted this much. In a sworn affidavit (PDF), he said
              that he installed an unnamed monitoring utility in September 2005,
              three months before his wife moved out of their home. The affidavit
              said the utility "collects keyboard typing, screen shots, and
              requested access to Web sites...The keyboard typing utility logs the
              time and sequence of keystrokes...The screen shot logging feature is
              similar to hitting the 'print screen' button on most keyboards. It
              saves an image of what appears on the monitor."

              He also admitted to downloading e-mail from his wife Amy's Web-based
              e-mail account, but claimed it was authorized because she had chosen
              to save her username and password through the browser's "remember me"
              feature.

              He planned to use that vast array of electronic evidence as
              ammunition to win his divorce case. Eventually his lawyer showed some
              of the correspondence between Amy Havlicek and Christina Potter to
              Amy's own attorney. In an affidavit (PDF), Potter claims that the
              correspondence was also shown to neighbors and a court-appointed
              custody evaluator "to harass, annoy, and inflict emotional injury on
              me."

              Potter, his wife's alleged paramour, responded by filing a federal
              lawsuit designed to shut Jeffery up. She asked for an injunction
              barring any "disclosure" or "dissemination" of the electronic
              documents, including preventing them from being used in the divorce
              case taking place in state court.

              The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a federal law, was
              violated during the recording, Potter claimed. ECPA (18 USC Section
              2511) bans anyone from disclosing "to any other person the contents
              of any wire, oral, or electronic communication" that was obtained
              illegally.

              Potter lost. U.S. District Judge Thomas Rose said that ECPA does not
              permit courts to disallow such evidence, saying that appeals
              courts "have concluded that Congress intentionally omitted illegally
              intercepted electronic communications from the category of cases in
              which the remedy of suppression is available." He also rejected her
              request for a broader injunction, saying it would violate Jeffery's
              freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment.

              Rose did say, however, that "disclosure of the information in state
              court by Jeffery Havlicek or his attorney" might be "actionable
              civilly or criminally." He suggested that the "remember me" option
              probably didn't give Jeffery an implied right to view his wife's e-
              mail messages. And he ordered Jeffery to provide Potter, his wife's
              alleged paramour, with the complete set of electronic evidence that
              he had planned to use in the divorce case.

              Excerpt from Rose's opinion:
              Because the suppression provision excludes illegally intercepted wire
              and oral communications from the courtroom, but does not mention
              electronic communications, several courts, including the Sixth
              Circuit, have concluded that Congress intentionally omitted illegally
              intercepted electronic communications from the category of cases in
              which the remedy of suppression is available.

              With this distinction in mind, the court finds that it does not have
              the authority to forbid the disclosure of the allegedly intercepted
              communications to the state official determining custody of the
              Havliceks' children or any other state court proceeding. This is not
              to imply, however, that disclosure of the information in state court
              by Jeffery Havlicek or his attorney might not be actionable civilly
              or criminally under 18 USC (Section) 2511. In any event, the court's
              inability to enjoin the presentation of this evidence in state court
              does not resolve the question of whether the injunction on disclosing
              this information in other context should issue. Therefore, the court
              will proceed to consider the appropriateness of relief in this case,
              beginning with plaintiff's chances of succeeding on the merits.

              Defendant's response to the motion for preliminary injunction claims
              that the keystroke recording and screen shot recording software do
              not record communications contemporaneously with the transmission of
              the communications. Contemporaneousness was an element originally
              introduced to 18 USC (Section) 2511 when the law applied only to wire
              and oral communications...

              We conclude that the term "electronic communication" includes
              transient electronic storage that is intrinsic to the communication
              process for such communications. That conclusion is consistent with
              our precedent...

              Moreover, the court views the screen shot software as distinct from
              the keystroke software in regards to the interstate commerce
              requirement. In contrast to the keystrokes, which, when recorded,
              have not traveled in interstate commerce, the incoming emails
              subjected to the screen shot software have traveled in interstate
              commerce. Additionally, there is no evidence before the court to
              allow any conclusion that the technical aspects of the instant case
              result in Potter's claim being defeated by a lack of
              contemporaneousness, even if the court were to find this element
              necessary...

              Defendant raises another hurdle to success on the merits, however, by
              referring to the case of United States v. Ropp, which focuses on the
              requirement in 18 USC (Section) 2510(12) that the interception be of
              an interstate or foreign communication or be of a communication
              affecting interstate commerce. Ropp notes that keystroke software
              records the entirely internal transmission from the keyboard to the
              CPU, and records all keystrokes, whether they initiate signals
              destined to travel in interstate commerce or not. The decision,
              however, seems to read the statute as requiring the communication to
              be traveling in interstate commerce, rather than merely "affecting"
              interstate commerce. It seems to this court that the keystrokes that
              send a message off into interstate commerce "affect" interstate
              commerce...

              Because the ECPA does not provide for the relief of suppression of
              illegally intercepted electronic communications sought to be used as
              evidence in a court case, and because a balancing of plaintiff's
              impending irreparable harms and the public interest in the requested
              injunction against plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits of
              her claims weighs in favor of not granting the requested injunction,
              plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. 16, is denied.

              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              ----------------------------

              From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
              On Behalf Of Jim Parker
              Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:35 AM
              To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Re: Is recording conversation from a police
              scanner illegal ?



              <<<< But, based on my experience, illegally obtained evidence usually will
              be admitted as evidence in court, as long as it can be properly
              authenticated and the party who obtained it is not a law enforcement
              official. >>>>

              John,

              You should note that under federal law, intercepted communications are
              specifically prohibited from being used as evidence in any trial, hearing or
              proceeding (see 18 USC §2515) and to do so, or endeavor to do so is a felony
              crime punishable with up to 5 years in prison.

              United States v. Wuliger provides a good example. Wuliger was an attorney
              representing the husband in a divorce case. During deposition and the
              divorce hearing, Wuliger used transcripts and tapes of illegally obtained
              communications of the wife as evidence. He was subsequently prosecuted by
              the US Attorney under 18 USC §2511(1)(d) which makes it a crime to "use" or
              "endeavor to use" any part of an illegally obtained communication.

              The district court fined Wuliger $5,000 and placed him on two year probation
              on the condition that he serve a 30-day home detention and surrender
              his license to practice law. In January, 1992, the Supreme Court of Ohio
              indefinitely suspended him.

              I believe his conviction was overturned on appeal, but only on a
              technicality (that the jury had not been properly instructed that Wuliger
              must have known or had reason to know that the conversations were recorded
              illegally.)

              He was saved from liability in a civil suit later filed by the wife, only
              because the parties original divorce decree included a broad release of the
              parties and their lawyers from a series of rights, benefits, and
              liabilities. The language of the release, the court determined, would
              include a civil suit brought by the wife for violation of The Wiretap Act.

              Jim

              -----Original Message-----
              From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
              [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
              <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> ]
              On Behalf Of John Huheey
              Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:57 AM
              To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: Is recording conversation from a police scanner
              illegal ?

              Esteemed colleagues

              I think you need to consult with an attorney on this one, because
              there are so many issues involved. But, based on my experience,
              illegally obtained evidence usually will be admitted as evidence in
              court, as long as it can be properly authenticated and the party who
              obtained it is not a law enforcement official. That does not mean
              that the party who obtained the evidence will not be charged civilly
              or criminally by another party (example: Linda Tripp). I recall many
              cases where, as a law enforcement officer, we received illegally
              recorded conversations (tapes made by third parties), and then were
              able to use them as evidence in cases because we (the LEO's) had not
              recorded the conversation ourselves.

              John Huheey
              Veritas Investigations
              Dayton, OH

              --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
              <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
              <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> , "alvinsbabycakes"
              <alvinsbabycakes@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Hello,
              >
              > I have read all the previous posts about recordings of
              conversations in
              > Michigan, however; I didn't see anything about recording from the
              public
              > airways like a conversation which comes through a police scanner? Is
              > this also illegal? I live in Michigan and my daughter and her new
              > husband after returning from a visit with his parents in which he
              also
              > brought more of his personal belongings home with them , one being a
              > small police scanner. After returning home he plugged the scanner
              in and
              > soon they heard my daughters ex-husbands wife coming through their
              > scanner. In the conversation my daughter learned that her ex's wife
              was
              > planning on illegally drugging my daughter's little boy who is 4 and
              > autistic. I won't repeat this girls comments about my grandson but
              it
              > makes one sick to think anyone could be so cruel. Now my daughter
              went
              > to the court and filled a motion on parenting time and also a PPO
              > against her ex husbands wife for abusing my grandson. The judge
              after
              > hearing my daughter accepted the taped conversations as evidence
              1,2,
              > and 3 along with transcripts of each tape entered as evidence. My
              > daughter also got a PPO against her ex's wife for threatening my
              > daughters life several times.
              >
              > The small town they live in has a small city police department, and
              even
              > though this girl has violated the PPO's against her, the police
              refuse
              > to do anything?? My daughter and her husband and the kids live in
              the
              > same apartment building as her ex husband and his wife.
              >
              > Question is I guess if this is illegal also to tape a conversation
              that
              > is coming through a police scanner from this girl talking on a
              cordless
              > telephone, how can the judge accept this as entered evidence
              against my
              > daughters ex husbands wife, refer CPS to do a throughal
              investigation ,
              > put PPO'S on her and set up yet another hearing today at 1:00 P.M.
              due
              > to her claiming she is not guilty of making any threats or abusing
              the
              > little 4 year old boy? Yet , when last in court in front of this
              same
              > judge she admitted her violent temper she even yelled at the
              judge!! So
              > today as I understand it the prosecuting attorney will also be
              present.
              > I don't understand this either? But I would like to know if there
              is a
              > law code about the recording of a telephone conversation coming
              through
              > a police scanner through the public airways? The police say it's
              illegal
              > to record the conversations, the judge accepts them as evidence? So
              I am
              > really confussed! Any help would be so greatly appreciated,
              especially
              > if I can get it before court this afternoon, so I at least know
              what is
              > legal and what is illegal and where this may go. Thank you very very
              > much for any and all help!
              >
              > AlvinsBabyCakes
              >





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jim Parker
              Message 6 of 21 , Sep 27, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                <<<< I think the below scenario is a fair representation of how evidence
                that may
                be obtained illegally by a private citizen can still be ruled as admissible
                in court: >>>>


                Well, yes and no. The problem is that what you have quoted is not relevant
                to the current discussion, simply because what we are discussing is the
                interception of wire/oral communications, and the case you are talking about
                concerns electronic communications.

                Intercepted wire/oral communications ARE federally prohibited for use as
                evidence, whereas electronic communications are not (see 18 USC §2515)

                §2515 reads:


                Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications

                Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the
                contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be
                received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before
                any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body,
                legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or
                a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would
                be in violation of this chapter.


                You'll see that electronic communications aren't covered in that section on
                admissibility (although the act of intercepting and disclosing the
                communications are, as your case noted).

                Also keep in mind that state law also come into play. Just two years ago in
                Florida, for example, Beverly O'Brien attempted to introduce communications
                obtained by a placing key-logger on her husband's computer as evidence in
                their divorce case. The 5th District Court of Appeal disallowed the use of
                the communications as evidence, noting that the wife's actions were "illegal
                and punishable as a crime".

                Jim
              • Jim Parker
                That would be up to the Court to decide, but as most have noted, the fact that your daughter s husband took the
                Message 7 of 21 , Sep 27, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  <<<< Nothing was done deliberatly ... >>>>

                  That would be up to the Court to decide, but as most have noted, the fact
                  that your daughter's husband took the initiative to hook up a recorder to
                  the scanner would tend to indicate otherwise.

                  The fact that the police threatened to arrest you and your daughter is
                  precisely why I suggested your best course of action is just to shut up (in
                  the legal sense) and not make an issue out of it.

                  Technically, as you've described the events, several state and federal
                  crimes were committed, and if no one at this stage wants to pursue criminal
                  or civil action or isn't smart enough to, I wouldn't be giving them the
                  ammunition or inclination to do so.

                  Jim



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                  On Behalf Of alvinsbabycakes
                  Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:00 PM
                  To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is recording conversation from a police scanner
                  illegal ?

                  Jim,
                  Nothing was done deliberatly as I stated in the previous post as far as my
                  daughter knew they were all getting along fine and doing what was in the
                  best intrest of my grandson who is autistic. I understand deliberately
                  taping or tapping a phone is against the law as it should be, however;
                  planning to deliberatly drug a 4 year old autistic boy so he would sleep I
                  would think one would consider this child endangerment, not to mention child
                  abuse. I just didn't understand the judge allowing this as evidence and the
                  police stating it was against the law and threatening to arrest not only my
                  daughter but me, and I had nothing to do with any of this! So in conclusion
                  I was confussed due to the judges decision and the opinion of the police.
                  Thank you very much for answering my post I appreciate this very much.
                  Take Care, Be Safe, and have a Wonderful Day.!
                  AlvinsBabyCakes

                  Jim Parker <Jim@... <mailto:Jim%40FloridaDetectives.com> >
                  wrote:
                  <<< I believe she said that they were in two different apartments in the
                  same complex or building. >>>

                  You're right, Vicki; I missed that part when I first glanced over it.

                  Anyhooo... under Michigan law, your daughter's husband committed the felony
                  crime of willful eavesdropping. He has also committed the further felony
                  crime of divulging the illegally obtained conversations to your daughter.
                  If the ex's wife is smart enough to pursue it, your daughter's husband AND
                  your daughter could be facing serious criminal charges and extensive civil
                  liabilities including injunctive relieve and monetary damages (including
                  punitive).

                  However, Michigan law does not prohibit the admissibility of evidence
                  obtained in such a manner.

                  That's why the police will not act on the taped conversations, but the judge
                  has allowed them as evidence.

                  It's also illegal to manufacture a scanner that allows the monitoring of
                  cordless phone frequencies or is easily modified to do so, but the liability
                  on that falls on the seller, not the buyer. If, however, your daughter's
                  husband modified the scanner himself so he could monitor a cordless phone,
                  then that's also a federal crime.

                  I'd say at this stage, your daughter and her current husband have been
                  lucky, so it might be an idea just to shut up and not make a legal issue of
                  this.

                  Jim

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
                  [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                  <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> ]
                  On Behalf Of Vicki Siedow
                  Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:58 PM
                  To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
                  Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is recording conversation from a police scanner
                  illegal ?

                  I believe she said that they were in two different apartments in the same
                  complex or building. I sure wouldn't want to live that near my ex. She
                  needs an attorney and a moving van.

                  "My daughter and her husband and the kids live in the
                  same apartment building as her ex husband and his wife."

                  Was the scanner altered in any way? Did they overhear the conversation
                  accidentally, or were they trying to tune them in? I think since they
                  specifically recorded it they do have a problem, but I'd have done the same
                  thing if it was my kid.

                  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>
                  >
                  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 Jim Parker
                  Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:50 AM
                  To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
                  Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is recording conversation from a police scanner
                  illegal ?

                  How far away from the ex-husband's house did this monitoring take place?

                  As in, if you (and the scanner) were in Michigan, where was the husband's
                  ex-wife when she was making her phone calls? Another state? Another city?

                  Jim

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>


                  [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                  <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>

                  ]
                  On Behalf Of alvinsbabycakes
                  Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:47 AM
                  To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>

                  Subject: [infoguys-list] Is recording conversation from a police scanner
                  illegal ?

                  Hello,

                  I have read all the previous posts about recordings of conversations in
                  Michigan, however; I didn't see anything about recording from the public
                  airways like a conversation which comes through a police scanner? Is
                  this also illegal? I live in Michigan and my daughter and her new
                  husband after returning from a visit with his parents in which he also
                  brought more of his personal belongings home with them , one being a
                  small police scanner. After returning home he plugged the scanner in and
                  soon they heard my daughters ex-husbands wife coming through their
                  scanner. In the conversation my daughter learned that her ex's wife was
                  planning on illegally drugging my daughter's little boy who is 4 and
                  autistic. I won't repeat this girls comments about my grandson but it
                  makes one sick to think anyone could be so cruel. Now my daughter went
                  to the court and filled a motion on parenting time and also a PPO
                  against her ex husbands wife for abusing my grandson. The judge after
                  hearing my daughter accepted the taped conversations as evidence 1,2,
                  and 3 along with transcripts of each tape entered as evidence. My
                  daughter also got a PPO against her ex's wife for threatening my
                  daughters life several times.

                  The small town they live in has a small city police department, and even
                  though this girl has violated the PPO's against her, the police refuse
                  to do anything?? My daughter and her husband and the kids live in the
                  same apartment building as her ex husband and his wife.

                  Question is I guess if this is illegal also to tape a conversation that
                  is coming through a police scanner from this girl talking on a cordless
                  telephone, how can the judge accept this as entered evidence against my
                  daughters ex husbands wife, refer CPS to do a throughal investigation ,
                  put PPO'S on her and set up yet another hearing today at 1:00 P.M. due
                  to her claiming she is not guilty of making any threats or abusing the
                  little 4 year old boy? Yet , when last in court in front of this same
                  judge she admitted her violent temper she even yelled at the judge!! So
                  today as I understand it the prosecuting attorney will also be present.
                  I don't understand this either? But I would like to know if there is a
                  law code about the recording of a telephone conversation coming through
                  a police scanner through the public airways? The police say it's illegal
                  to record the conversations, the judge accepts them as evidence? So I am
                  really confussed! Any help would be so greatly appreciated, especially
                  if I can get it before court this afternoon, so I at least know what is
                  legal and what is illegal and where this may go. Thank you very very
                  much for any and all help!

                  AlvinsBabyCakes

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                  ---------------------------------


                  To subscribe, send an empty message to
                  infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  <mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe%40yahoogroups.com>

                  To unsubscribe, send a message to infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  <mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>

                  ---------------------------------


                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                  ---------------------------------
                  Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • RanchoAttySvc@aol.com
                  The original post in this thread came from what appears to be a private citizen and not a professional investigator. Laws vary from state to state, and of
                  Message 8 of 21 , Sep 27, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The original post in this thread came from what appears to be a private
                    citizen and not a professional investigator. Laws vary from state to state, and
                    of course we have to consider the federal statutes as well.

                    Cindy, please provide more contact information so that someone can contact
                    you directly or refer you to someone in your area who could answer your
                    particular questions with specific information. Signing only as "alvinsbabycakes"
                    would, I imagine, discourage many responses that might be helpful to you.

                    Thank you all for using complete signature blocks. Anonymous posts
                    directed to a world-wide forum are suspect to many of us.

                    _"RASCAL" - Your friendly neighborhood Process Server_
                    (http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/)
                    Michele Dawn, RPS 117 & CA PI 24790
                    Rancho Attorney Service of California &
                    RASCAL's Research & Location Services
                    28465 Old Town Front St #318
                    Temecula, CA 92590
                    (951) 693-0165
                    _www.ranchoattorneyservice.com_ (http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/)



                    ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Jim Parker
                    Message 9 of 21 , Sep 27, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      <<<< Cindy, please provide more contact information so that someone can
                      contact you directly or refer you to someone in your area who could answer
                      your particular questions with specific information. Signing only as
                      "alvinsbabycakes"
                      would, I imagine, discourage many responses that might be helpful to you.
                      >>>


                      I dunno, Michele...

                      If I were posting to a public forum admitting to several acts that could
                      well be construed as federal and state crimes, I wouldn't be too inclined to
                      provide my real name or contact information either.

                      I suspect that the original poster in some way suspected that the actions of
                      her daughter's boyfriend may be criminal acts, and that's why she didn't
                      provide full information.

                      I'm kinda ok with that. If it were a post like "can anyone get bank account
                      info" or similar, I'd want to know who was asking, but in a matter merely
                      for someone's personal edification, I don't think we need to know.

                      Jim


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                      On Behalf Of RanchoAttySvc@...
                      Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:59 PM
                      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is recording conversation from a police scanner
                      illegal ?

                      The original post in this thread came from what appears to be a private
                      citizen and not a professional investigator. Laws vary from state to state,
                      and
                      of course we have to consider the federal statutes as well.

                      Cindy, please provide more contact information so that someone can contact
                      you directly or refer you to someone in your area who could answer your
                      particular questions with specific information. Signing only as
                      "alvinsbabycakes"
                      would, I imagine, discourage many responses that might be helpful to you.

                      Thank you all for using complete signature blocks. Anonymous posts
                      directed to a world-wide forum are suspect to many of us.

                      _"RASCAL" - Your friendly neighborhood Process Server_
                      (http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/
                      <http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/> )
                      Michele Dawn, RPS 117 & CA PI 24790
                      Rancho Attorney Service of California &
                      RASCAL's Research & Location Services
                      28465 Old Town Front St #318
                      Temecula, CA 92590
                      (951) 693-0165
                      _www.ranchoattorneyservice.com_ (http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/
                      <http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/> )

                      ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
                      <http://www.aol.com>

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Vicki Siedow
                      It would also be a good idea to get your legal advice from an attorney. As you can see, while we investigators work with recordings and the laws pertaining to
                      Message 10 of 21 , Sep 27, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        It would also be a good idea to get your legal advice from an attorney. As
                        you can see, while we investigators work with recordings and the laws
                        pertaining to them, each case is different, as is each jurisdiction, each
                        judge and each DA. You will do best to get an attorney in the correct
                        jurisdiction and area of specialty to study this particular case and advise
                        you. Your local bar should be able to direct you, or if you cannot afford
                        to go that route consider Prepaid Legal Services. I use it and sell it with
                        good results.



                        http://prepaidlegal.com/hub/vsiedow



                        I agree that while autism wears hard on caregivers, drugs, especially those
                        given without the agreement of the parents, are not a good solution. Check
                        out this organization, they find non-drug solutions for mental illness,
                        autism, ADD, etc.



                        http://alternativementalhealth.com/



                        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 RanchoAttySvc@...
                        Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:59 AM
                        To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is recording conversation from a police scanner
                        illegal ?



                        The original post in this thread came from what appears to be a private
                        citizen and not a professional investigator. Laws vary from state to state,
                        and
                        of course we have to consider the federal statutes as well.

                        Cindy, please provide more contact information so that someone can contact
                        you directly or refer you to someone in your area who could answer your
                        particular questions with specific information. Signing only as
                        "alvinsbabycakes"
                        would, I imagine, discourage many responses that might be helpful to you.

                        Thank you all for using complete signature blocks. Anonymous posts
                        directed to a world-wide forum are suspect to many of us.

                        _"RASCAL" - Your friendly neighborhood Process Server_
                        (http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/)
                        Michele Dawn, RPS 117 & CA PI 24790
                        Rancho Attorney Service of California &
                        RASCAL's Research & Location Services
                        28465 Old Town Front St #318
                        Temecula, CA 92590
                        (951) 693-0165
                        _www.ranchoattorneyservice.com_ (http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/)

                        ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                        Messages
                        <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/message/11290;_ylc=X3oDMTM2dDll
                        YnVhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDM1NTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDU5MzU0BG1zZ0lkAzEx
                        MzEyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE5MDkxNzEyMgR0cGNJZAMxMTI5MA--> in
                        this topic (0)
                        <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZWJ1bGtmBF9TA
                        zk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDM1NTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDU5MzU0BG1zZ0lkAzExMzEyBHNlY
                        wNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTE5MDkxNzEyMg--?act=reply&messageNum=11312>
                        Reply (via web post) | Start
                        <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZGl2YzcxBF9TA
                        zk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDM1NTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDU5MzU0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250c
                        GMEc3RpbWUDMTE5MDkxNzEyMg--> a new topic



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Jim Parker
                        There s no need whatsoever that I can see for this lady to retain an attorney on this issue. Maybe on the custody issue, but certainly not to answer questions
                        Message 11 of 21 , Sep 27, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          There's no need whatsoever that I can see for this lady to retain an
                          attorney on this issue. Maybe on the custody issue, but certainly not to
                          answer questions on something that's already over and done with.

                          Not to mention that lawyers frequently give their clients terribly bad
                          advice, because by far, the vast majority of attorneys don't have anywhere
                          near the experience and understanding that the people here who deal in these
                          issues daily have.

                          I frequently get calls from attorneys asking me to do things that are
                          blatantly illegal, but don't know that until I tell them and explain exactly
                          what laws they (or I) would be violating.

                          I'll bet several others here face the same issues frequently.

                          This lady is already ahead of the game by getting evidence submitted that
                          could potentially lead to serious criminal charges or extensive civil
                          damages, but no one thus far has blinked an eye. Throwing attorneys into
                          the mix is only going to inspire the opposition to get her own attorney, who
                          may well be smarter than she is and want to pursue this matter further.

                          It's simply inviting trouble.

                          Jim



                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                          On Behalf Of Vicki Siedow
                          Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:49 PM
                          To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is recording conversation from a police scanner
                          illegal ?

                          It would also be a good idea to get your legal advice from an attorney. As
                          you can see, while we investigators work with recordings and the laws
                          pertaining to them, each case is different, as is each jurisdiction, each
                          judge and each DA. You will do best to get an attorney in the correct
                          jurisdiction and area of specialty to study this particular case and advise
                          you. Your local bar should be able to direct you, or if you cannot afford
                          to go that route consider Prepaid Legal Services. I use it and sell it with
                          good results.

                          http://prepaidlegal.com/hub/vsiedow <http://prepaidlegal.com/hub/vsiedow>

                          I agree that while autism wears hard on caregivers, drugs, especially those
                          given without the agreement of the parents, are not a good solution. Check
                          out this organization, they find non-drug solutions for mental illness,
                          autism, ADD, etc.

                          http://alternativementalhealth.com/ <http://alternativementalhealth.com/>

                          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 RanchoAttySvc@... <mailto:RanchoAttySvc%40aol.com>
                          Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:59 AM
                          To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
                          Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is recording conversation from a police scanner
                          illegal ?

                          The original post in this thread came from what appears to be a private
                          citizen and not a professional investigator. Laws vary from state to state,
                          and
                          of course we have to consider the federal statutes as well.

                          Cindy, please provide more contact information so that someone can contact
                          you directly or refer you to someone in your area who could answer your
                          particular questions with specific information. Signing only as
                          "alvinsbabycakes"
                          would, I imagine, discourage many responses that might be helpful to you.

                          Thank you all for using complete signature blocks. Anonymous posts
                          directed to a world-wide forum are suspect to many of us.

                          _"RASCAL" - Your friendly neighborhood Process Server_
                          (http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/
                          <http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/> )
                          Michele Dawn, RPS 117 & CA PI 24790
                          Rancho Attorney Service of California &
                          RASCAL's Research & Location Services
                          28465 Old Town Front St #318
                          Temecula, CA 92590
                          (951) 693-0165
                          _www.ranchoattorneyservice.com_ (http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/
                          <http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/> )

                          ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
                          <http://www.aol.com>

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                          Messages
                          <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/message/11290;_ylc=X3oDMTM2dDll
                          <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/message/11290;_ylc=X3oDMTM2dDll
                          >
                          YnVhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDM1NTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDU5MzU0BG1zZ0lkAzEx
                          MzEyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE5MDkxNzEyMgR0cGNJZAMxMTI5MA--> in
                          this topic (0)
                          <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZWJ1bGtmBF9TA
                          <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZWJ1bGtmBF9TA
                          >
                          zk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDM1NTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDU5MzU0BG1zZ0lkAzExMzEyBHNlY
                          wNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTE5MDkxNzEyMg--?act=reply&messageNum=11312>
                          Reply (via web post) | Start
                          <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZGl2YzcxBF9TA
                          <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZGl2YzcxBF9TA
                          >
                          zk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMDM1NTQEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDU5MzU0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250c
                          GMEc3RpbWUDMTE5MDkxNzEyMg--> a new topic

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.