>>>California law explicitly bans recording a person’s voice without his knowledge. The law further states that such secret recordings cannot be used against a person in a court of law. If government cannot use such evidence to take a person’s property, how can a private business do so? Is the NBA more powerful than the State of California? Is the NBA above the law? <<<
While I don’t agree with the NBA using private, illegally obtained recordings, if the California law only forbids such recordings from being used in court, then I would think the NBA was within the law, rather than “above the law”.
If the case ever makes it to court, it will be interesting to see if the NBA is even allowed to use the recording or its contents to defend itself against Sterling. I would think, as far as a court is concerned, the recording wouldn’t exist and there would be no evidence that Sterling ever made the comments, unless they could get Stiviano to testify (which would likely force her to admit to committing a crime, under oath, in court).
I think Sterling’s real case would be that the NBA was acting arbitrarily and capriciously and breaching its contract with him, by banning him and forcing him to sell, based upon private comments, illegally recorded.
Unless I miss my guess, it's also a violation of applicable Federal law to surreptitiously record conversational audio without the consent of all participants unless you're law enforcement.
Wasn’t there something about him voluntarily having all his conversations recorded? Did I imagine that or what?
Anyhow, what would a fast food company do if it was made public that one of it’s franchise owners told his lizard person open mistress that he didn’t want her to be seen eating 80% of the food they sell in public? What if a competitor started using the audio in an advertising campaign? Are they just supposed to not do anything or what? I ask because I don’t know.
FReegards
Fruit of the poison tree.
As you youself said, such recordings may not be used as evidence by the government in court. But the NBA is not the government and their use of the recordings for whatever purpose is no more illegal than TMZ's use of them was. So why couldn't they use them as part of their defense? It's not like the NBA had a hand in the illegal act of recording them in the first place. They got the tapes the same way we got them - when TMZ aired them.
I think Sterling’s real case would be that the NBA was acting arbitrarily and capriciously and breaching its contract with him, by banning him and forcing him to sell, based upon private comments, illegally recorded.
In the first place, the powers granted the commissioner are so broad that it's virtually impossible to define is actions as arbitrary or capricious. Second, the NBA would claim it was Sterling who breached the contract by acting contrary to the best interests of the association, which is why he was banned. Finally, the NBA did not force him to sell his team so that's off the table from the beginning.