@LexInVA, your internet searching skills are amazing. Thank you for sharing.
8 Likes
Warningā¦there are now about 200 posts I have yet to readā¦ā¦
Short answerā¦.I assumed the logical. A previous poster had said he had a gun safe and had guns. After a little digging on gun laws, NJ is the only state that requires licensing in order to have a gun. Licenses for rifles for hunting are generally given freely. A handgun required a special license, must be justified, and are not so freely given. Itās most logical that he took her and the gun in his office and explained how she was breaking the gun laws and only meant to put it up properly until she left to try to protect her.
And weāll have to disagree on if there is any value in attempting to āread the tea leavesā of conflicting stories. In my experience, you may not be able to discern the small detailsā¦.but you can absolutely get the big picture and fill in the missing pieces close enough. Also, as you deal with it moreā¦.it becomes predictable.
8 Likes
I am not a legal professional, but I remember what IM said about this. Apparently the audio recorder was in LKs tack closet, so a part of the barn that she was boarding at, and a specific area allocated just to her. If one is leasing an entire house or barn, it seems logical they could install devices. Now being just one boarder out of a bunch of boarders makes it murkier. The devices would have recorded various people in the barn aisles, including LK. So is that one party consent? It seems not difficult to argue there was no expectation of privacy in the barn aisles.
Anyway, this looks to me like an excellent set up for lawyers to argue that the recordings were/were not legal. I donāt see it as a clear case one way or the other.
It was private property, yes, but LK was one of a number of people paying to use the property.
2 Likes
I suppose if the defense feels that there is content on the recording that they can use to their benefit they will not bother to fight them being introduced.
2 Likes
But she was recording conversations to which she was not a party. Thus, none of the parties who were recorded consented (or even knew she was recording). There is no way you can ever successfully argue one party consent to conversations the consenting party was not a part of. Thatās clear.
The expectation of privacy angle is the only colourable argument I see, but I await input from the specialists here.
19 Likes
Ummā¦.NJ gun laws explain that. She didnāt have the proper licensing to have the handgun in NJ and most certainly wasnāt carrying it or storing it in the legal manner if it was in her truck. MB probably knew thatā¦.which is why he asked for the gunā¦ā¦and why she didnāt ask for it back.
5 Likes
Well Iād RC was a frequent visitor of the barn and traveled there regularly . Can we also assume it was common knowledge that when she can it would be routine? So why this one time did MB want to see the gun? Wouldnāt it be explain in a different way. Like RC saying that when she went to NJ, she regularly locked the gun in MB safe? "Logically "asking
2 Likes
I was only relaying what I remembered IM stating. She set up a system to record whatever was said in the barn aisles. At various times it would record conversations including her, and sometimes not including her. If you look at the act of setting up the system, which would sometimes capture what she was saying, is that possibly one party consent? I think IM argued that it might be.
But I agree with you that no expectation of privacy seems a stronger consideration.
1 Like
logically speaking sane people do not wave their guns around or advertise the fact they own one. a friend of mine packs heat, but until recently I was not aware of this.
The point of carrying - usually concealed - is to not show it off.
So she might not have carried it prior, kept it in the trunk, or whatever, until tensions and safety concerns arose.
But this is speculation.
5 Likes
Sure but Iām guessing that was a huge mistake to leave that major part out. Too bad you canāt just add that in. Also if that was the case I donāt think that constitutes as illegal transfer of a firearm. Even if it was supposed to be locked in MBās safe, and MB later uses it for a crime. RC has taken all precautions that the gun was in fact safe
Another general question to ask the experts about recording devices? Does the purpose of the device come into play in regards to its legality? For example if someone was using it as part of a blackmail scheme versus someone who was using it for for security or whatever?
3 Likes
Ok so why not start with that. RC didnāt even end there. Iām not denying that sounds like a reasonable argument but its obviously not the case. If the gun was put in the safe to keep it safeā¦ then it was stolen by MB and she would face no charges
those are assumptions on your part. I do take you are not a party to the events?
(and the one person who was has proven to be an unrelyable narrator)
9 Likes
I think there is some kind of disconnect here that assumes that moderators are sitting at their computers 24/7 attending to every flag made by someone who does not like a particular poster or the way a thread (any thread) is going, or a wide assortment of grievances of disparate importance and severity.
Repeatedly flagging the moderators in this thread in an indignant frenzy only makes the flaggers look bad, IMO. You do not need to demand this or that or stamp your feet and repeat the same thing over and over and over againā¦ I understand it is a desire to get the thread locked down or muddy the water or whateverā¦ but it is tiresome and pointless.
No more, no less.
I will also quietly note that some posts made in this thread do not help the case - as many of us have noted throughout these threads.
21 Likes
I would suspect that there are two questions then. (i) Is the recording made legally (did the recording party meet the one- or two-party consent requirement)? (ii) If yes, does their use of the legally obtained recording violate any laws (e.g., blackmail)? If so, while the recording itself is legal/admissible, the use of it is not.
I donāt think itās a question here b/c the people who recorded it and the prosecution would like to use the recordings to prove a crime, which is not an illegal use. The question remains was it a legal recording.
9 Likes
Good points! Thank you!
1 Like
I suppose that they can not prove the intended use of the recording if it was never used for that so this makes total sense.
Saying the intended use was blackmail, but it never had a chance to be used for that. (Disclaimer, not saying that is the case here, just an example.)
3 Likes
I would think it would almost be considered as 2 different things in one case and related in another.
In the case of one party consent if none of the voices consented itās inadmissible.
In the case where one party who placed the recording device is one of the parties whose voices is recorded then it would be admissible UNLESS the other party objected on the basis the recording device was illegally placed/recorded.
Just a hunch on my part. Iām looking forward to clarification by @vxf111.
4 Likes
Lol, itās not about me.
You canāt say Mod1 is ignoring it.
You canāt know they seen it yet.
Patience is a virtue.
7 Likes
Yes. I remember this. Also, the article says RCās charges were initially 4th degree felony, suggesting to me that they must have been changed to a much lesser charge.
4 Likes
