Maybe. I just don’t think it matters much for this. There will be oral arguments in front of the judge next week and all of the “evidence” will be provided then.
3 Likes
Interestingly, there is a current case in Michigan that will likely define whether Michigan is a one party consent or two party consent state. I stumbled on it when I was researching recording law in Michigan for a friend who is having issues with a town official. He recorded several conversations and I was attempting to clarify whether it was admissible when I found the district & appellate court rulings and the district court’s prediction that the long held belief about Michigan’s eavesdropping statute was a one party consent, that the supreme court would interpret it as a two party consent statute.
I know this particular case is in NJ, but if anyone is looking to use a recording in a court setting, they really should check how well the statute is written in their state.
As a random thought - in states that two part consent is required - do police officers wearing body cams have to make that known before even speaking at all to someone? Miranda aside, I’ve seen situations where officers have talked to someone, end up arresting them, and then read the miranda rights. Is any of the pre-Miranda information admissible if the defendant did not know they were being recorded? I know is seems silly to not assume you’re being recorded at all times when interacting with a police officer, but there are plenty of clueless people out there.
8 Likes
You simply can’t legally install secret recording devices throughout someone’s property. Plus recording conversations to which you are not engaged in directly.
Focused on your stalls & visual only may be legal but I doubt the voice recordings would be without a judge giving prior authorization.
It isn’t Walmart & EVERYONE and their wallets are welcome.
8 Likes
You can see the police reports in the filings however so much is blacked out on them.
2 Likes
This is slightly off topic from the case with the police but I have a legal question. Some barns that have guest accommodations are running them like an airbnb rather than a tenant with a lease.
Does this eliminate some of the potential landlord headaches such as evictions or does it create new ones if things don’t go well between the guest and the owner?
*speaking of secret recording devices, someone I know found one in an airbnb they stayed at. It was later discovered that it wasn’t the owner who put it there, it was a previous guest. Creepy!
1 Like
Not in my state. Once a body inhabits a premises for 30 days, tenancy rights are deemed established.
So in my state if a friend comes to visit and they don’t leave in 30 days then legally they have rights.
2 Likes
Can the owner continue to bill them the going rate until they leave?
In my state rent is rent. If 3 people owe $900 in rent and a judgment is entered each owes $900. But legally the landlord stops collected once they get their $900
2 Likes
Thanks!
But what if there is a written agreement stating that they are permitted to stay until Nov 10, 2021 and they just overstayed? Wouldn’t the written end-of-tenancy date mean eviction could start on Nov 11?
2 Likes
Re: needing a judge to give prior authorization: I can see that the FBI and other LE would need prior authorization for a wiretap. But a private citizen?
Aren’t there lots of cases of parents setting up recording devices on the nanny, or one spouse setting up surveillance on the other spouse? Would that need prior authorization by a judge? Good thing I never did either; it would not have occurred to me to get authorization from a court.
1 Like
Plus there are plenty of places where the police do not wear body cams. So I would not automatically think I was being recorded.
2 Likes
Thank you for posting the second amendment! I haven’t had the time to cut and past all 100 pages!!
1 Like
In the event of a nanny, the parents are recording someone in the privacy of their home. Ditto for granny-cams, even when in a nursing home.
Setting up a keystroke logger on your spouse’s private computer (vs. one that is shared between spouses or the family) or a computer provided by their employer can land you in a world of trouble. Don’t do it. It IS an invasion of privacy in many states (including my own).
6 Likes
Obviously you can set up webcams in your own house.
There are two different questions here.
-
Are you allowed to set up webcams in a given space?
-
Is that webcam footage admissible in court as evidence against a person?
I don’t think in any world it is legal to set up recording devices outside of the property you own or rent. If I live in an apartment building I can have a webcam inside my suite but I cannot put a secret webcam in the elevator or lobby. There might even be specific laws against it. The landlord could certainly rip it out if he found it.
The question of under what circumstance a recording is admissible as court evidence changes between jurisdictions.
Anyhow I was surprised in this case that there actually turned out to be any recordings at all. So much of this case is about trying to cause mischief, bluff, lie and participate in paranoia that I was figuring the whole tapes thing was just another lie. It may also turn out there is nothing of interest on them.
As far as what’s actually legal, or what’s admissible in court, there’s little evidence anyone was thinking that far down the road.
7 Likes
Nanny cams with video-only recording are allowed in all states, obviously with reasonable cause (suspicion of elder abuse by caretaker; child abuse, theft, etc.) Recording devices with audio are illegal under wiretapping laws, in most states. Likewise most recordings would be in admissible in court.
5 Likes
Especially since the cameras on the porch were mysteriously unproductive (or something) on the day of the incident.
10 Likes
Are you saying someone needs reasonable cause to put up a camera in their own home? That sounds like a stretch to me.
If I want to put up a camera in my house to keep an eye on my dog when I’m not home, I don’t think I need reasonable cause to do it.
Ditto for all the people who put up the Ring cams on their front doors.
5 Likes
No, did not intend to present that. Just that it’s not legally cool to put them up, if determined to be in use, for peeping tom use, blackmail, that sort of thing.
Recent local case: A 95 yo dementia client in an assisted care facility. Family noticed bruising, hid one in an old DVD player in the client’s room at the private facility. The recording in this case did include audio, but was used in court to successfully prosecute the nursing staff.
3 Likes
After reading the second amendment thoroughly, I honestly think Barney Fife would be a far superior police officer compared to this department. How embarrassing for that township!
7 Likes
