Recording Conversations in Michigan

[cook2burn]

I am in Michigan and I have recently been informed that an employee has been using some kind on devise for taping private conversations. Is it legal for her to:

Tape a face to face private conversation between her and I without my knowledge?

Tape an in person conversation between me, another employee, and herself without all of our knowledge?


Thanks,
Cook2burn

[moburkes]

I am in Michigan and I have recently been informed that an employee has been using some kind on devise for taping private conversations. Is it legal for her to:

Tape a face to face private conversation between her and I without my knowledge?

Tape an in person conversation between me, another employee, and herself without all of our knowledge?


Thanks,
Cook2burn

You are a supervisor? Legal or not, this is grounds for immediate termination.

[cook2burn]

Actually I should have said she was an ex employee.

cook 2 burn

[Baystategirl]

Actually I should have said she was an ex employee.

cook 2 burn

Michigan is an all party consent state.

Federal preemption does not apply in states such as Michigan that have enacted their own statutes providing users more protection than the federal wiretapping laws. (S. Rep.No. 1097, 90th Cong, 2d Session, reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2112, 2187). The emerging law is that for cases involving email, state jurisdiction may be exercised when e-mail is intentionally targeted to recipients in a specific state.

The Michigan wiretapping statute requires that all parties to the communication must agree to the monitoring for communication interceptions to be legal. See, e.g.,MCL § 750.539c. There are notable exceptions such as legal surveillance by a state police office or federal official while in the performance of that official's duties, and interception of communication as long at it is done in the ordinary course of business routinely conducted with a valid business purpose at its core. See, e.g., MCL § 750.539g.

[aaron]

While I recognize that many websites represent differently, Michigan is not an "all party consent" state. If you are a participant in a conversation, you may record the conversation without the permission of other participants. The problem arises from people reading MCL 750.539c without also looking at the definitions set forth in MCL 750.539a:

The operative language of MCL 750.539c; MSA 28.807(3) prohibits a person from "wilfully [using] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties thereto". As used in the statute, the term "eavesdrop" means to "overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse". MCL 750.539a(2); MSA 28.807(1)(2). We believe the statutory language, on its face, unambiguously excludes participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to "the private discourse of others". The statute contemplates that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on. Had the Legislature desired to include participants within the definition, the phrase "of others" might have been excluded or changed to "of others or with others".

Plaintiff argues that MCL 750.539c; MSA 28.807(3) must apply to both participants and nonparticipants since it relates to "[any] person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation * * *". We disagree. Although the phrase arguably creates an ambiguity as to the persons affected by the act, the interpretation requested by plaintiff would render inoperative the words "of others" in the statutory definition of eavesdropping. A more logical interpretation may be made that gives full effect to that statutory definition. The words "[any] person who is present or who is not present" merely acknowledge that eavesdropping may be committed by one who is actually in close physical proximity to a conversation or by one who is some distance away but eavesdrops utilizing a mechanical device. Quite plainly, one may be "present" during a conversation without being a party to the conversation and without his presence being apparent to those conversing. For example, the eavesdropping party could literally be under the eaves outside an open window.

[Betty3]

Agree - if a call is recorded by a party to the conversation, one-party consent is required. If a call is recorded by a person not a party to the conversation, all parties must consent. (Michigan)

[Muledoe]

What if you have a video recorder in the car. Do you have to inform any passenger that your are video and audio recording? Does that also apply if you get pulled over?

[aaron]

The Michigan statute speaks to whether you are a party or nonparty. If you are a party to a conversation you can record it.

[tit4tat]

I guess I would wonder what was the harm that had come of the evesdropping? It is what is done with the recording that makes it harmful, unsafe, or whatever constitutes a crime. Laws are made to keep people safe, just because we don't like something does not make it harmful to us. Ask yourself are you just angry cause she is taping you? Are you being catty? Did you ask her why? What is it that you care about here? I hate things that endanger me, that could harm my loved ones, take away my livlihood but until there is that outcome I cant see reason to spend all my time trying to figure out what "might be" or "could have been".

[Muledoe]

Arron, i plan on installing a camera in my car for auto racing purposes at the tracks.

If i decide not to take this out at times but let it run. Say i get pulled over , do i have to inform the officer that i am recoding or not?