Recording of Conversations at Home
My question involves civil rights in the State of: California
Hypothetically...if someone wanted to voice record a conversation in their place of residence with the owner who also lives in the same residence without their knowledge to reveal personal threat and criminal activity, would they be breaking any laws?
I do understand such may not be submissible in court, but what about reporting crime to authorities?
Re: Recording of Conversations at Home
California is a 2-party state so you must have consent of both parties. If the evidence is inadmissible in court as having been illegally obtained, what good is it? Even if the police were to try and pursue a case using such evidence which is unlikely given the nature of it, they would need additional properly obtained evidence to do anything about it. Well, except for arresting you and charging you with a crime since you were nice enough to give them the evidence.
Re: Recording of Conversations at Home
Quote:
Quoting
spydrworks
My question involves civil rights in the State of: California
Hypothetically...if someone wanted to voice record a conversation in their place of residence with the owner who also lives in the same residence without their knowledge to reveal personal threat and criminal activity, would they be breaking any laws?
I do understand such may not be submissible in court, but what about reporting crime to authorities?
The federal Exclusionary rule generally only forbids evidence obtained by police illegally, not a citizen, unless CA's laws do not permit it?
Re: Recording of Conversations at Home
Quote:
Quoting
spydrworks
My question involves civil rights in the State of: California
Hypothetically...if someone wanted to voice record a conversation in their place of residence with the owner who also lives in the same residence without their knowledge to reveal personal threat and criminal activity, would they be breaking any laws?
I do understand such may not be submissible in court, but what about reporting crime to authorities?
That would depend on the criminal activity.
It would generally be permitted if related to "extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, a violation of Section 653m, or any crime in connection therewith."
Re: Recording of Conversations at Home
Quote:
Quoting
BOR
The federal Exclusionary rule generally only forbids evidence obtained by police illegally, not a citizen, unless CA's laws do not permit it?
Note the bold portion below.
PENAL CODE
SECTION 632
632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the
person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section
or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the
state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) The term "person" includes an individual, business
association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or
other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for
or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether
federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all
parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or
recording the communication.
(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
(d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of
this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon
or recording a confidential communication in violation of this
section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative,
legislative, or other proceeding.
(e) This section does not apply (1) to any public utility engaged
in the business of providing communications services and facilities,
or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts
otherwise prohibited by this section are for the purpose of
construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and
facilities of the public utility, or (2) to the use of any
instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used
pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic
communication system used for communication exclusively within a
state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.
(f) This section does not apply to the use of hearing aids and
similar devices, by persons afflicted with impaired hearing, for the
purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit the hearing of sounds
ordinarily audible to the human ear.
Also, per cdwjava's post:
633.5. Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7
prohibits one party to a confidential communication from recording
the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably
believed to relate to the commission by another party to the
communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any
felony involving violence against the person, or a violation of
Section 653m. Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7
renders any evidence so obtained inadmissible in a prosecution for
extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against
the person, a violation of Section 653m, or any crime in connection
therewith.