Can You Record a Neighbor Abusing His Family

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I agree - when you hear it, call the police and ask them to check it out. Keep in mind that the name and location of the person who called the police might be a matter of public record.

As for recording, there'd be nothing unlawful about recording noise you can hear in your apartment. It is hardly a confidential communication if the yelling, or slamming of doors bleeds into your apartment. If you can hear it where you have a lawful right to be, you can generally record it. So, no crime there.

---

Please read the statute I posted a link to.

What the OP is hearing is not just noise, there is intelligible speech being heard.

And the statute doesn't distinguish between confidential communication or non-confidential communication. It just refers to oral communication.

The OP would be OK with recording the door slamming or a scream or a yell that is just noise and not words, but not any words being spoken.

The status of all the case law I have ever seen on this holds that such interception governs CONFIDENTIAL communication. It ceases to be confidential when you scream and yell to such a point that anyone else can hear it. He is hardly intercepting it. In fact, an argument could be made that he is a recipient. Or, should he prohibited from recording his own children in his own apartment because the neighbor's might be yelling?

It is not going to be unlawful to turn a recording device on in one's own apartment because it might capture the loud yelling or arguing in another apartment. That would simply be nonsense.

I cannot imagine any prosecutor would stretch the intent of that law to include loud yelling or arguing, and I imagine there is already case law that addresses this ... I just don't have the time or inclination to hunt for it.

But ... This case analysis seems to support my contention:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-court-...s/1400987.html

I think it would come down to a question of "reasonable expectations of privacy." If someone is yelling loud enough to be heard 30 feet outside of their apartment, they probably don't have much of a reasonable expectation of privacy. And yes, I've come home from work at 7 AM on a Sunday morning and heard this guy yelling from 30 feet outside of the building as I'm walking up to my residence.

But I don't want to have to go through the court system to win an appeal on that basis.

"In one Maryland case, an apartment dweller recorded his neighbor’s conversation, which he could hear right through the adjoining wall. An appeals court rejected the claim that this recording was unlawful, on the grounds that anybody who speaks loudly enough to be heard in the next apartment has no reasonable expectation of privacy."

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.co...ersations.aspx

I think I'll just call the cops every time I hear him flipping out so they can start a paper trail on this guy.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I agree - when you hear it, call the police and ask them to check it out. Keep in mind that the name and location of the person who called the police might be a matter of public record.

---

I'm not afraid of this dude. He seems like the type who is only dangerous to women and children.

It may well come down to a reasonableness analysis, but when the statute is clear and offers no such exception it makes sense to act cautiously. You might think, for example, that if somebody were charged with a felony for recording an encounter with the police in which she was sexually harassed by an officer, any prosecutor or appellate judge would object, "For obvious public policy reasons, even in a 'two party consent' state you can record an encounter with an officer without his consent, and it's important to empower the public to record unethical or criminal conduct by police officers without fear of arrest or retaliation." But you would be wrong.

Generally speaking you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home. If the neighbor has been explicitly warned, "When you so much as raise your voice within ten feet of the wall between our units, or yell anywhere in your unit, I can clearly make out every word," then that believe would be lessened or eliminated in relation to communication that you then come to understand may be heard by others.

Added:

Quote:

---

Quoting michael_looc

---

But I don't want to have to go through the court system to win an appeal on that basis.

---

As they say, better safe than sorry. If you were in Maryland, you would be in good shape... but for such a case to have been decided by a court, the most typical context will involve somebody's decision to prosecute the person who made the recording. Please note also, Virginia's statutory definitions refer to recording "any... oral communication" while the Maryland statute examined in Malpas v. State speaks of recording "private conversation", and the Maryland court specifically mentioned that definition when discussing expectations of privacy.

Though the court's analysis seems to indicate that they do hold that particular section to a reasonableness standard even in VA.

I seriously doubt the local cops would even consider filing charges against someone recording noise he can hear in his own home. I wouldn't be all that concerned, myself.

The Maryland court was neither reviewing nor commenting on the Virginia statute, nor would an evaluation of the Virginia statute by a Maryland court have any legal significance.

I doubt, also, that anybody would be charged. But stranger things have happened, so discretion remains the better part of valor.

I linked a VA case that did appear to review the statute. I did not even look at the MD case.

Sorry - I overlooked your link. The holding there is contextual. It is perfectly reasonable to say, "A defendant charged with a crime has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police station, let alone in an interrogation room," while continuing to hold that a person has a reasonable expectation against the same sort of intrusion while in his own home. The decision was predicated upon prior case law to the effect that, "oral communication is not protected by Chapter 6 unless (1) the speaker exhibits the expectation that his conversation will not be intercepted, and (2) the circumstances justify the expectation of noninterception". So... that takes us back to my earlier suggestion about explicitly warning the neighbor about the paper-thin walls, and being able to make out conversation through the walls, so as to remove any expectation that such a communication is private.