Laws Concerning Recording Conversations over the Phone

Jump to Comments

Wire Tapping

 

Laws Concerning Recording Conversations over the Phone

 

To: President George W. Bush

From: Frank Paul Gambino

Date: 15 September 2008

 

You will have to deal with some powerful emotions this year, both your own and other people. Sooner or later though you must learn the art of putting your feelings on hold and acting purely on logic!  Emotional crises are best solved by clarity of thinking….

…A full moon in your sign makes you eager to get moving and prove to the world you have what it takes. The only danger is that you may not be fully prepared for the task you have set. Take a few more days to make sure your plan is foolproof.

 

The laws in California and Georgia are clear and strict; the laws in New York are lenient. You be the judge on a case by case basis, it depends on where the recording is done from.

Is it legal to tape record telephone calls?

The state and federal laws mentioned above deal primarily with wiretapping and eavesdropping by law enforcement officials. In addition to these laws, both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have acknowledged the importance of privacy in telephone conversations by placing additional restrictions on tape recording such conversations.

California law does not allow tape recording of telephone calls unless all parties to the conversation consent (California Penal Code 632), or they are notified of the recording by a distinct “beep tone” warning (CPUC General Order 107-B(II)(A)(5)). However, tape recordings can legally be made if an individual or members of one’s family are threatened with kidnapping, extortion, bribery or another felony involving violence. The person receiving the threats can make a tape recording without informing the other party. (California Penal Code 633.5)

Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted laws based on the federal standard. But 12 states, including California, require the consent of all parties to the call. These are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. For a state-by-state guide to taping laws, including a discussion of federal law and references to case law, see the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press guide, www.rcfp.org/taping/ .

Georgia

[Back to state index] Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-62: Secretly recording or overhearing a conversation held in a private place, whether carried out orally or by wire or electronic means, is criminally punishable as a felony under statutory provisions regarding invasions of privacy. However, the law expressly provides that it does not prohibit a person who is a party to a conversation from recording and does not prohibit recording if one party to the conversation has given prior consent. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-66. Interception of a private cellular telephone conversation without the consent of at least one of the parties is a misdemeanor. Barlow v. Barlow, 526 S.E. 2d 857 (2000). A civil action for wiretapping offenses is authorized. Tapley v. Collins, 41 F. Supp.2d 1366 (S.D. Ga. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 211 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2000). Use of a hidden camera “without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view” is illegal. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-62(2).

New York

[Back to state index] N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05: It is a Class E felony to overhear or record a telephonic or telegraphic communication if one is not the sender or receiver, or does not have the consent of either the sender or receiver. It also is a crime for someone not present to overhear or record any conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party to that conversation. Cordless telephone conversations that are partially broadcast over ordinary radio waves are protected by the wiretapping and eavesdropping laws and require the same consent for recording as any other communication. New York v. Fata, 559 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). State courts have held that newspapers that published transcripts of an illegally recorded telephone conversation were subject to civil liability when “the newspapers knew they were dealing with recorded conversations between unconsenting parties.” Natoli v. Sullivan, 606 N.Y.S.2d 504 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oswego County 1993), aff’d, 616 N.Y.S.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Conspiracies, Jermaine Dupri