Is My Employer Obligated to Report Wiretap Related Crime

[Bret123]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: California

Greetings,

I was caught recording a meeting at work without consent. I expect to be terminated over it but I wondered if I should also be expecting criminal charges. Is reporting it completely at my employer's discretion or would they be legally obligated to report it?

Thank you for your time.

[jk]

generally speaking, they have no requirement to report the matter but any person illegally recorded does have the right to report the crime.

[Bret123]

Thank you for your prompt reply.
Have a great day.

[adjusterjack]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: California

Greetings,

I was caught recording a meeting at work without consent. I expect to be terminated over it but I wondered if I should also be expecting criminal charges. Is reporting it completely at my employer's discretion or would they be legally obligated to report it?

Thank you for your time.

There is a remote possibility that recording a business meeting might fall under the exception in CA Penal Code Section 632:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...0&file=630-638

You would have to have an attorney research the case law to see if the exception applies.

At any rate, even if you don't get criminally prosecuted you can certainly be terminated from your job, possibly for misconduct, which might disqualify you from unemployment compensation.

[jk]

There is a remote possibility that recording a business meeting might fall under the exception in CA Penal Code Section 632:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...0&file=630-638

Ok jack, can you explain that a bit.

[adjusterjack]

Ok jack, can you explain that a bit.

I did say remote chance. Here's what I'm thinking.

Section 632 prohibits the eavesdropping or recording of a "confidential communication" without the consent of all parties.

"632 (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."

I admit it's a stretch, but a business meeting in a room full of employees might fit the exception.

I haven't researched case decisions so I could be wrong, but it's something for the OP to think about in case he does end up facing prosecution.

[jk]

I think you have stretched it beyond the breaking point.

or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard (My addition to make it clearer: by somebody not a party to the conversation) or recorded."

and given it was a meeting, I'm imagining the OP and a few close associates where the OP is getting chewed out about something. Obviously me running without anything to support it but for some reason, I cannot imagine this came about from a meeting with 500 people being lectured by the CEO about how business was last year.

[adjusterjack]

I think you have stretched it beyond the breaking point.

Maybe, maybe not.

In 2002 the CA Supreme court addressed the definition of "confidential conversation" and concluded:

"that a conversation is confidential under section 632 if a party to that conversation has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded."

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=en&as_sdt=4,5

I've been wildly speculating so far, but we'd need more details of the OP's "meeting" to make any meaningful comments.

With whom was he meeting? One person? Several? In what setting? Private office? Conference room? Door open or closed? Anybody outside the room? How far away? Anybody walking in or out of the room during the meeting?