PDA

View Full Version : ...


DedEye
12-17-2008, 1:54 PM
...

JamesY
12-17-2008, 1:57 PM
The people at my work inform the other party that "for quality control purposes, I'd just like to inform you that this call is being recorded" or something like that.

bwiese
12-17-2008, 2:05 PM
Any FUD "guidance" coming from a clerk-agent visiting a gunshop should be requested in writing.

ke6guj
12-17-2008, 3:11 PM
I've heard some computerized phone systems that when you call, will inform you that they record calls for quality assurance. According to some, if you start recording the call before that statement and have that on tape, it is legal because they have already informed you of their intent to record the call, so you don't have to inform them of your intent. Both parties, by way of the "quality assurance" notification, have been informed.

Now, I dunno, if calls to CADOJ include that notification.

Satex
12-17-2008, 10:24 PM
Call from a state that requires just one party.

artherd
12-18-2008, 12:48 AM
Call from a state that requires just one party.

NO. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/states/Cal/S124739.PDF) - calls into 2 party states must follow 2 party rules.

DDT
12-18-2008, 1:05 AM
Getting caught recording without consent, first offense, is $2500 +1 year max. What is the penalty for acting on Bad DOJ advice and getting arrested nut not having evidence of your conversation?

I firmly believe that notice given by either party would cover both parties recording.

JDoe
12-18-2008, 6:46 AM
Getting caught recording without consent, first offense, is $2500 +1 year max. What is the penalty for acting on Bad DOJ advice and getting arrested nut not having evidence of your conversation?

I called the DAs office and asked if they would consider prosecuting someone that was recording telephone conversations and they literally laughed. Apparently they are busy and have bigger fish to fry but I didn't record the conversation because it would have been illegal to do so.

Decoligny
12-18-2008, 9:04 AM
I called the DAs office and asked if they would consider prosecuting someone that was recording telephone conversations and they literally laughed. Apparently they are busy and have bigger fish to fry but I didn't record the conversation because it would have been illegal to do so.

But if you acted on bad guidance fro DOJ and had weapons siezed or were arrested, and tried to sue or prosecute someone from DOJ for providing bad info, then chances are the recording would not be allowed as evidence as it was obtained illegally.

Liberty1
12-18-2008, 9:08 AM
I'd be surprised if DOJ wasn't recording all in coming calls. Anyone know?

DDT
12-18-2008, 9:14 AM
I'd be surprised if DOJ wasn't recording all in coming calls. Anyone know?

I just called the 800 number and hit 0 (after 1 for english) for a human. I got in the queue and the recorded information just said, please wait for next available operator and didn't say any of the usual "this conversation is being recorded for quality assurance purposes." Maybe not.

smokingloon
12-18-2008, 9:25 AM
Although California is a two-party state, it is also legal to record a conversation if you include a beep on the recorder and for the parties to hear.

California prohibits telephone monitoring or recording, including the use of information obtained through interception unless all parties to the conversation consent (California Penal Code Sections 631 & 632). There is no statutory business telephone exception and the relevant case law all but excludes this possibility. California courts have recognized "implied" consent as being sufficient to satisfy the statute where one party has expressly agreed to the taping and the other continues the conversation after having been informed that the call is being recorded.

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm

I wonder how often it has to beep.

scoutpup99
12-18-2008, 9:32 AM
The beep has to be at the beginning and It has to last 1 second. Since I work for the at&t we are covered on this once a year. I believe the tone has to be 40Khz. I will have to dig through my paperwork to verify.

tcrpe
12-18-2008, 9:57 AM
The people at my work inform the other party that "for quality control purposes, I'd just like to inform you that this call is being recorded" or something like that.


This is interesting to me. A while ago, when I was involved with Dish Network, the details of which are irrelevant, I would call and a message would say, "this call may be recorded for quality purposes."

I took that as permission for me to record the call. Later in the episode, when I played a previous call for the next "supervisor", to affirm what I had been told, he objected to my having recorded the call, saying they never grant permission to record.

I slewed back to where I have been granted the permission above. He was speechless.

Then they caved.

JDoe
12-18-2008, 10:10 AM
But if you acted on bad guidance fro DOJ and had weapons siezed or were arrested, and tried to sue or prosecute someone from DOJ for providing bad info, then chances are the recording would not be allowed as evidence as it was obtained illegally.

Quite true.

Annie Oakley
12-18-2008, 10:11 AM
Hm, just a thought. If the other party is recording, and they tell you they are recording, can you record without telling them since they already know that the conversation is being recorded ? I'm asking this because while being recorded is one thing, being in control of the recording is totally different. I was also thinking what if a person asks them if the conversation is being recorded ? If the other party says yes, does that mean you can record and it will be legal ?

DDT
12-18-2008, 10:18 AM
But if you acted on bad guidance fro DOJ and had weapons siezed or were arrested, and tried to sue or prosecute someone from DOJ for providing bad info, then chances are the recording would not be allowed as evidence as it was obtained illegally.

Quite true.

Why is that? I admittedly don't know the case law showing that it could be used but what is the basis on which you say that it can't? After all the DOJ is not a defendant in any action (assuming you are using it in your defense and not in the inevitable civil suit to follow) and the state has no 4th amendment guarantees from the people anyway AFAIK.

Zhukov
12-18-2008, 10:50 AM
Our phone actually will beep periodically during a recorded call.

LOW2000
12-18-2008, 12:18 PM
My wife was a 911 officer, she never had to tell anyone she was recording, nor was there any prompt that the call would be recorded, but they all were. Many of those calls have been used in court.

Nodda Duma
12-18-2008, 12:20 PM
This is interesting to me. A while ago, when I was involved with Dish Network, the details of which are irrelevant, I would call and a message would say, "this call may be recorded for quality purposes."

I took that as permission for me to record the call. Later in the episode, when I played a previous call for the next "supervisor", to affirm what I had been told, he objected to my having recorded the call, saying they never grant permission to record.

I slewed back to where I have been granted the permission above. He was speechless.

Then they caved.

Nice. I'll have to remember that.

-Jason

ke6guj
12-18-2008, 12:29 PM
My wife was a 911 officer, she never had to tell anyone she was recording, nor was there any prompt that the call would be recorded, but they all were. Many of those calls have been used in court.
Right, we all know 911 calls are recorded. The question then becomes, how is it legal for the police to record that call without informing the second party. Is there an exemption for calls to law enforcement? And if so, does CADOJ far within that exemption?

artherd
12-18-2008, 12:46 PM
The beep has to be at the beginning and It has to last 1 second. Since I work for the at&t we are covered on this once a year. I believe the tone has to be 40Khz. I will have to dig through my paperwork to verify.

I think you mean 4KHz... 40KHz is well above the range of even the best human ears.

artherd
12-18-2008, 12:46 PM
I'd be surprised if DOJ wasn't recording all in coming calls. Anyone know?

What, DOJ violating the law? Never!

yellowfin
12-18-2008, 12:49 PM
I read somewhere that public officials legally have no expectation of privacy when acting in official capacity. Their work is public domain, so what they say on the phone while calling in an LE capacity is public domain. This could be just in other states, but I don't know.

DDT
12-18-2008, 12:50 PM
OK. This is covered by PC 632


632(d) excludes any recording made in violation of 632 from being used in another case:

(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.

I didn't find an exemption for 911 calls. Admittedly I have no idea what would qualify under exemption 2, perhaps that would encompass 911

(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.

ke6guj
12-18-2008, 12:50 PM
I tried reading through this, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638 , the recording section, but my eyes starting glazing over trying to read and understand it.

sfwdiy
12-18-2008, 12:53 PM
Hm, just a thought. If the other party is recording, and they tell you they are recording, can you record without telling them since they already know that the conversation is being recorded ? I'm asking this because while being recorded is one thing, being in control of the recording is totally different. I was also thinking what if a person asks them if the conversation is being recorded ? If the other party says yes, does that mean you can record and it will be legal ?

I think you could easily make the argument that "turnabout is fair play" in this situation. If one party makes the statement that they might record the conversation and you have to agree with that to continue the call, they have no right to tell you that you can't do the same.

--Ben

DDT
12-18-2008, 12:53 PM
Quite true.

I read somewhere that public officials legally have no expectation of privacy when acting in official capacity.

My reading of the PC seems to indicate that is only the case in open meetings, not all interaction with citizens. I personally believe this should be the case and maybe there is some case law to that effect.

bohoki
12-18-2008, 1:07 PM
but if it is on speaker phone there is no expectation of privacy

DDT
12-18-2008, 1:30 PM
but if it is on speaker phone there is no expectation of privacy

Why is that?

Doheny
12-18-2008, 1:36 PM
I called the DAs office and asked if they would consider prosecuting someone that was recording telephone conversations and they literally laughed. Apparently they are busy and have bigger fish to fry but I didn't record the conversation because it would have been illegal to do so.

Ask the DA to give you that in writing and see if they laugh...

gn3hz3ku1*
12-19-2008, 8:43 AM
just call from a state that doesnt have this 2 party law... i think texas? anyone going on vacation?

kermit315
12-19-2008, 9:55 AM
That has already been covered in this thread.....calls into a two party state must follow two party rules.

Pont
12-19-2008, 12:24 PM
If one side is potentially recording the call, then neither side has an expectation of confidentiality. If they record the call, then that recording could be subpoenaed for evidence. They can't exactly claim, "but that's not fair! we were planning destroying that evidence!"

ke6guj
12-19-2008, 12:34 PM
we know that, but do we have to assume that CADOJ is potentially recording every call, even thoug apparantly, the VM system does not mention that. Or, is it common knowledge, and backed up with PC, that all calls to a LE agency may be recorded, and not just 911 calls?

Pont
12-19-2008, 2:18 PM
911 is expected to be recorded.

Calls to a random government office are not. If there is no announcement on their side, you must announce from your side. If their website says it's recorded on their "Contact Us" page, that probably counts too.

IANAL and all that.

ke6guj
12-19-2008, 3:06 PM
911 is expected to be recorded."expected to be recorded" does not neccessarily make it legal to do so. There's gotta be PC that makes it legal for them to do so.

And that PC may cover other agencies as well. Just gotta find the PC.

DDT
12-19-2008, 3:19 PM
I'm guessing that 633 is what they will rely on for that.

Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 prohibits
the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any assistant,
deputy, or investigator of the Attorney General or any district
attorney, any officer of the California Highway Patrol, any chief of
police, assistant chief of police, or police officer of a city or
city and county, any sheriff, undersheriff, or deputy sheriff
regularly employed and paid in that capacity by a county, police
officer of the County of Los Angeles, or any person acting pursuant
to the direction of one of these law enforcement officers acting
within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or
recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or
record prior to the effective date of this chapter.
Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 renders
inadmissible any evidence obtained by the above-named persons by
means of overhearing or recording any communication that they could
lawfully overhear or record prior to the effective date of this
chapter.


Answering a 911 call is clearly within the duty of a 911 operator.

Notice that any call to the DOJ would fall under this provision as well. The only open question is if YOU can also record the conversation and I suspect the answer is no. Now, assuming you are routed to the person who ultimately answers your question would providing notice to whoever answers the call cover you for the entire call? I suspect not and that you have to notify the "other party" individually and not institutionally.

I think you'll have to notify before you can record.

yellowfin
12-19-2008, 4:05 PM
If they are aware that they are being recorded already by them, what's it matter who else does? This one way street junk is highly irritating.

oaklander
12-19-2008, 4:29 PM
What Bill said.

Get important stuff from the DOJ in writing.

That being said, it's always a good idea to take copious notes, including who you talked to, the date and time, what they said, and who their supervisor is. If possible, get their email address and follow it up with an email "confirming" the conversation and what was discussed. In my personal opinion, this is better than recording.

bohoki
12-19-2008, 6:09 PM
Why is that?

say you are on the speaker phone in a public place and someone is videotaping you would that be against the law?

DDT
12-19-2008, 7:24 PM
say you are on the speaker phone in a public place and someone is videotaping you would that be against the law?

No, but that is a far cry from simply being on a speakerphone.

Boots
12-19-2008, 7:58 PM
I would think it would be legal for LE if during the course of an investigation and with a court ordered warrant.

Right, we all know 911 calls are recorded. The question then becomes, how is it legal for the police to record that call without informing the second party. Is there an exemption for calls to law enforcement? And if so, does CADOJ far within that exemption?

sorensen440
12-19-2008, 8:01 PM
say you are on the speaker phone in a public place and someone is videotaping you would that be against the law?

Nope there is no expectation of privacy in a public place

now if you were the one videotaping I suspect it would be different

SkatinJJ
12-19-2008, 8:12 PM
Say that I call the DOJ - BOF and ask if my call could be recorded.

They say that they have that right.

I say, So this call could be recorded. Then I go and record it.

Is this permission enough, or do I have to be more explicit in my warning?

DDT
12-19-2008, 9:54 PM
I would think it would be legal for LE if during the course of an investigation and with a court ordered warrant.

No warrant needed. If it is in the course of their duty they can record it. This is in PC 633 posted in its entirety above. This is a separate code from that pertaining to 2 party notification so there doesn't appear to be any reciprocal right for other parties to record any and all conversations with LE.

ARPirateMilitia
12-19-2008, 10:00 PM
The DOJ is not a "party" as defined in law. They are government and they are always recording you.

yellowfin
12-19-2008, 10:36 PM
No warrant needed. If it is in the course of their duty they can record it. This is in PC 633 posted in its entirety above. This is a separate code from that pertaining to 2 party notification so there doesn't appear to be any reciprocal right for other parties to record any and all conversations with LE.If it isn't mentioned then it's not excluded, either. Tape em. About time we started holding these people accountable and nail their feet to the floor.

DedEye
12-19-2008, 10:46 PM
What Bill said.

Get important stuff from the DOJ in writing.

That being said, it's always a good idea to take copious notes, including who you talked to, the date and time, what they said, and who their supervisor is. If possible, get their email address and follow it up with an email "confirming" the conversation and what was discussed. In my personal opinion, this is better than recording.

Naturally that's the best. I'm trying to figure out alternatives given that the best is rarely availble.

Bill is also fond of the (accurate) quote "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

I'd settle for a (legal) audio recording of a DOJ representative giving me FUD than wait forever for written correspondence saying "58 DAs may decide differently." They must be stopped from spreading misinformation.