just got off the phone with delco sheriffs office

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by wewo

you cited a wire-tapping statute, you are not wire-tapping/intercepting when you make the call or receive the call. .

Incorrect.

Recording phone calls fall under that statute.
You can NOT record a phone call without ALL parties being informed. Unless you meet one of the exceptions of the statute.

The fact you made the call is irrelevant except that you obviously give yourself (one party) consent.

"wire-tapping" is a catch all "name". Not a confining condition of the statute.
Read the whole thing, it lays out what is not permitted and the exceptions.

[jkt]

Sheriff is up for election in 2009... everyone get ready!

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

Incorrect.

Recording phone calls fall under that statute.
You can NOT record a phone call without ALL parties being informed. Unless you meet one of the exceptions of the statute.

The fact you made the call is irrelevant except that you obviously give yourself (one party) consent.

"wire-tapping" is a catch all "name". Not a confining condition of the statute.
Read the whole thing, it lays out what is not permitted and the exceptions.

This is correct, PA law requires the consent of all parties to a phone call before recording may be done by any party. Federal law only requires one-party consent, but you are bound by the more restrictive of state & Federal laws. Any illegal recording is not only inadmissible against the non-consenting parties, it's evidence for your criminal trial.

[djturnz]

What if you say "I'm recording this call" and they don't respond?

I've recorded calls with bill collectors before. I figure that since they have the recording that says "calls will be monitored" that they are already giving consent by working the phones.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by djturnz

What if you say "I'm recording this call" and they don't respond?

I've recorded calls with bill collectors before. I figure that since they have the recording that says "calls will be monitored" that they are already giving consent by working the phones.

If you tell them that you are recording the call before they say anything (you want the tape to begin with "OK, I'm now recording this") and they continue with the call, then they have consented by implication. Make sure that your notification is on the same tape, prior to them talking.

I'm not sure how it works if you record a call that they have told you is being recorded by themselves. My guess is that all parties have consented to some sort of recording, the fact that you have your own copy shouldn't violate the law; but I have no case law on this point, so do so at your own risk.

Legitimate bill collectors shouldn't have a problem with recording. That's a good way to discourage the bottom-feeders who rely on lies to collect bad debt: tell them that they are being recorded, and they will hang up. Dishonest bill collectors have been known to promise that if you pay $100, they'll forgive the other $5000 that you owe from 1995. The problem is that your 1995 debt is probably too old to be enforceable, unless you do something dumb like make a new payment. Then it's revived ("reaffirmed") and collectible again, and the collector will swear that he never said anything about forgiving any debt. That's why the crooked collectors don't like to be recorded.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

This is correct, PA law requires the consent of all parties to a phone call before recording may be done by any party.

out of curiousity...what is the law if it is not a telephone conversation?

say you are talking face to face with someone and have an audio recording device in your pocket recording the conversation without them knowing it? (assume in public.)

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

out of curiousity...what is the law if it is not a telephone conversation?

say you are talking face to face with someone and have an audio recording device in your pocket recording the conversation without them knowing it? (assume in public.)

I'll defer to this website here:

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

"18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5703, 5704: It is a felony to intercept any wire, oral or electronic communication without the consent of all participants. It also is a felony to disclose or use the contents of a communication when there is reason to know those contents were obtained through an illegal interception.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5702.

A trial court has held that a communication protected by the legislation is one in which there is an expectation that it will not be recorded by any electronic device, rather than one in which there is a general expectation of privacy. Thus, the fact that a participant may believe he will have to reveal the contents of a communication, or that other parties may repeat the contents, does not necessarily mean that he would have expected that it would be recorded, and it is the expectation that the communication would not be recorded that triggers the wiretapping law's protections. Pennsylvania v. McIvor, 670 A.2d 697 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996), petition for appeal denied, 692 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1997).

Anyone whose communication has been unlawfully intercepted can recover actual damages in the amount of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, and also can recover punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. 18 Pa. Const. Stat.§ 5725.

A person commits a misdemeanor if he views, photographs or films another person in a state of full or partial nudity without consent, under circumstances where the nude person has an expectation of privacy.18 Pa. Const. Stat.§ 7507.1."

[LittleRedToyota]

thanks gun lawyer...it sounds like the situation i outlined would also be illegal since the person will have no reason to believe they are being recorded.

but, it also seems like if you have the recording device in the open where the person can see it, you would be OK.

so, and this kinda was my real question, if i video record the little jerkoffs that have been vandalizing my neighborhood and happen to catch some of their audio with the video, i am definitely OK if they see me doing it...but might not be OK if they don't see me doing it?

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

thanks gun lawyer...it sounds like the situation i outlined would also be illegal since the person will have no reason to believe they are being recorded.

but, it also seems like if you have the recording device in the open where the person can see it, you would be OK.

so, and this kinda was my real question, if i video record the little jerkoffs that have been vandalizing my neighborhood and happen to catch some of their audio with the video, i am definitely OK if they see me doing it...but might not be OK if they don't see me doing it?

Offhand, I recall reading that posting a sign on your gate that says "PREMISES UNDER AUDIO/VIDEO SURVEILLANCE" is enough to offset the expectation of privacy on your premises. If punks are smashing cars in the street, they'd have a hard time arguing that they expected privacy there.
I read that some guy recorded cops at his front door, using a camera in a birdhouse. He had a small sign on his porch, but the court found that was inadequate notice; but then, it was cops against one of the little people, so there's the usual court bias.

[delcosheriffsucks]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

thanks gun lawyer...it sounds like the situation i outlined would also be illegal since the person will have no reason to believe they are being recorded.

but, it also seems like if you have the recording device in the open where the person can see it, you would be OK.

so, and this kinda was my real question, if i video record the little jerkoffs that have been vandalizing my neighborhood and happen to catch some of their audio with the video, i am definitely OK if they see me doing it...but might not be OK if they don't see me doing it?

i could be dead wrong so verify this, however i belive that you can record someone out in the public on public property, i belive this is how the paperizzi(sp) get away with it.