Posted on 05/23/2015 11:56:58 PM PDT by nickcarraway
This guys victim needs to lure him into her home, kill him, and claim self-defense.
I don’t understand the legal reason or the principle behind not allowing the recording to be admissible evidence. No criminals ever give permission to be recorded.
but for decades the NSA has recorded any damn thing they wanted? What a joke law that was.
I’m with you. By granting some sort of cloak of privacy to a criminal act they equated it to someone being recorded picking their nose. One is embarrassing and harms nobody and thus privacy is a reasonable expectation. How could the law have equate that with rape or any criminal act?
Those laws that require wiretaps and the such should be confined to law enforcement.
How in the hell can you possibly twist the law to the point where the privacy law actually excludes evidence -- not even gathered by law enforcement -- against a violent felon. It is just plain NUTS.
That law should be ignored when criminal activity is recorded.
It’s a stupid law. If I am talking to someone and want to record what happens for my safety and security, I have that right.
They let police violate this law.
Frustrating I agree. However, I think that the title of this post is a little misleading in that it isn't so much a law that is supposed to tell all victims it is okay to tape the conversations but rather legitimizes the recordings to be admissible if they were recorded surreptitiously. Granted, hopefully victims will also become aware it's okay to record, but I think it fixes that problem of admissibility and the whole thing about "can someone unaware of it" be recorded legally.
Several states have laws about this. One party knowing - okay, other states say it has to be both, and so on. Remember Monica Lewinsky's conversations with Linda Tripp? She got into trouble with that same sort of thing.
Linda’s taped calls had an added complexity if I recall, she was taping phone calls (not a personal encounter) AND there was a squabble that she was in a locale that permitted citizens to tape a call without disclosing it to the other participant while Monica was not.
Some places only require that one of the persons need to know that the call is being recorded.
Yeah, I knew that on Tripp. But for calls, conversations or otherwise, the point is that states do often have laws that control them with regard to one or both party’s knowledge.
The key thing here I think is the law trying to legitimize evidence collected as a result of those encounters.
> I dont understand the legal reason or the principle behind not allowing the recording to be admissible evidence. No criminals ever give permission to be recorded.
I interview them quite frequenly. This is true. They never give authorization unless its to help their case and that rarely happens; more often likely if they are really innocent and the wrong person was charged with the crime tho.
The two party states where they require both parties to be notified that a conversation is being recorded is a joke and is only beneficial for unethical people, crooks or fraud perps. I believe that the legislation was drafted for that purpose and that the issue of privacy was used as the cover story.
Was Hillary his lawyer? She got a child rapist off before.
I have claimed for many years that the florida supreme court’s motto should be — “Well, at least we’re not as bad as the U.S. 9th circuit court of appeals.”
I have claimed for many years that the florida supreme court’s motto should be — “Well, at least we’re not as bad as the U.S. 9th circuit court of appeals.”
Yep. I have never had it satisfactorily explained to me.
IMO, evidence can never be illegal. If it is illegally obtained, the the “obtainer” has broken the law, not the evidence. The evidence should be allowed in court, & if the judge, DA or grand jury feel it was obtained illegally, then an indictment can be brought.
In our society today there are cameras recording us everywhere. The NSA monitors all our communications. Individuals are, & should be able to, film police in action, & anything else, for that matter. There is no expectation of privacy in public places & almost none in the presence of others, even in your own home.
The right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” is routinely ignored by the government, yet truthful evidence of a crime is routinely thrown out of court.
Perhaps, as individuals, we should all were a sign that says “I record every aspect of my life. If you interact with me you can expect to be recorded”.
In the not too distant future, our brains will be permanently connected to a server & the internet. Our eyes - our cameras - will record everything we see, our ears will record everything we hear, our bodies record everything we feel, 24/7/365. For all the burdens & loss of privacy that imposes, at least the concept of illegally recorded evidence will go away.
he is now free and an easy target
This needed a permission law?
If a third person had witnessed the rape, would that witness’s testimony be allowed in court against the rapist?
One could argue that, that third person is ‘means of recording’ for the event, in the same way as a video or audio recording. Would the court dismiss the witness as not being legally allowed to ‘remember’ the crimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.