diddy
recently joined
Reged: 08/11/07
Posts: 4
|
|
Looks like my husband, who I hope soon will be my ex-husband recorded a lot of our conversations until he finally managed to record me yelling at him. I was wondering if these tapes can be used in court, keeping in mind that I didn't know that he was recording me. I believe this is agains the privacy right and the court should not take them as evidence, but I want to hear what other people think.
Thanks.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
What state do you live in ?
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Debi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 7136
|
|
Where do you live? Some states are one party recording states, meaning only one person in the conversation has to know it's being recorded (that would be him). Other states are all party recording states, meaning everyone involved in the conversation needs to be aware of it.
Even if you are in a one party state it would still be up to the judge to decide if he'll listen to it much less enter it in as evidence. I had my x on my answering machine (which the kids had access to) calling me a b!tch and every other name he could think of and the judge in our case didn't care to even hear it.
--------------------
When we were together, you said you'd die for me. Now, I think it's time you kept your promise.
|
diddy
recently joined
Reged: 08/11/07
Posts: 4
|
|
I live in Illinois. I wonder why the judge didn't care, if your x is recorded on your answering machine that means that he knows he is recorded.
|
Debi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 7136
|
|
Illinois is an all party recording state. He can't use the tapes if you had no knowledge of them being made.
As for mine, the judge just didn't care about it or want to admit it. Good for my x, bad for me. The court doesn't have to admit them even if it is legal.
--------------------
When we were together, you said you'd die for me. Now, I think it's time you kept your promise.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Evidentiary Issues
Individuals and businesses that make surreptitious recordings often do so with the expectation that the recordings will be useful as evidence. Such recordings are subject to significant barriers to use as evidence. First, if made in violation of either federal or state law, the recordings will almost certainly be inadmissible. Second, even if lawfully recorded, the tapes will be exempt from the hearsay rule and will not, in most jurisdictions, be usable for impeachment. Anyone contemplating an evidentiary use of surreptitious recordings should consult with an attorney prior to making the recording.
Illinois
Illinois is, by statute, a two-party state. However, case law from both the IL Supreme Court and various Illinois appellate courts have declared Illinois a one-party state in the case of private citizens (businesses and plain folks - NOT law enforcement). The reigning consensus is that one-party consensual recording is merely "enhanced note-taking" and since some folks have total recall without recording, how can the other party have any expectation of privacy to a conversation held with another person.
Illinois requires prior consent of all participants to monitor or record a phone conversation. Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 38, Sec. 14-2. There is no specific business telephone exception, but in general courts have found extension telephones do not constitute eavesdropping devices. Criminal penalties for unlawful eavesdropping include up to three years' imprisonment or $10,000 in fines and the civil remedy provides for recovery of actual and punitive damages.
In the state of Illinois it is illegal to monitor cordless phones.
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
You guys are all assuming this is a phone conversation being taped. She didnt say that at all.
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
diddy
recently joined
Reged: 08/11/07
Posts: 4
|
|
As long as I read the same rules apply for recording of conversations and phone calls. Or am I rong? My husband recorded me talking a couple of times and intentially made me angry so tha I can say something bad and he can use that against me. Too good it is inadmissable.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26686
|
|
I think it depends on what they are used for, and you would probably need a lawyer to tell you better. There are standards of evidence that are required for criminal court and different ones for civil court. Sort of like OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial, and a totally different result in the civil trial. I would say alot of it depends on the judge, and really I think they understand getting mad is a part of divorce and people say all kinds of things. But again, my opinion means diddly and a lawyer is the way to go.
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
It's my understanding the "taping" of face to face conversations does not fall under the same laws and regs as telephone conversations.
They prohibit phones because that is wiretapping.
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
