Recorded Phone call

Status
Not open for further replies.

Innocient

New Member
Ok so my ex called me and told me that if i don't delete these online conversation logs where she admitted she has HPV than shes going to sue me, and then she threatened to "stab the shit" out of me. She called me restricted and my phone provider, MetroPCS, only gives call logs to court orders, So i had no other choice but to put her on speaker and got all of it on recorded. now in California it's illegal to record a phone call without both parties consent, but is this enough base to have it over looked if i ever have to use it?
 
No, it won't be overlooked or ignored, if push comes to shove.

But, are you sure you were in CA when she called?

Maybe you went to Vegas that day?
 
oh heyyy :) I was having dinner in vegas that day, good steaks man! You should meet up with me there, I'll buy you one :D
 
Yet, push come to shove, cell phone records can show where you trully were. All present day cell phones are GPS tracking capable.
 
well how about this, i had it on speaker and my friend was recording a video with his phone, is it excusable that he just happened to be recording when this happened.
 
Innocient said:
well how about this, i had it on speaker and my friend was recording a video with his phone, is it excusable that he just happened to be recording when this happened.

Accidents do happen.

Mistakes are made everyday, yet it takes weeks to sometimes discover them.
 
LOL - there are exigent circumstances. If she threatened your life and limb it is difficult to argue that the law against recording telephone conversations takes precedent. But moreso, there is also implied consent which would seem to apply in this case. See the law in California posted below. FYI in this post:

States with consent of all parties to record a telephone conversation:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington

States requiring only one party required to consent to recording

Alaska
Arkansas
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
 
California Penal Code Section 631

(a) Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or
contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any
unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically,
acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or
telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line,
cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication
system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to
the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts
to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report,
or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any
wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place
within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner,
or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so
obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any
person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done
any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is
punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and
imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison. If the person
has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or
Section 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, he or she is punishable by
a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and imprisonment
in the county jail or in the state prison.
(b) This section shall 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 herein 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.
(c) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of
this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall
be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other
proceeding.
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1994.
 
California Penal Code Section 632

(a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the
person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section
or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the
state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) The term "person" includes an individual, business
association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or
other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for
or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether
federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all
parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or
recording the communication.
(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
(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.
(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.
(f) This section does not apply to the use of hearing aids and
similar devices, by persons afflicted with impaired hearing, for the
purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit the hearing of sounds
ordinarily audible to the human ear.
 
All of this stated, I believe that (a) the actions have to qualify under these sections to be punishable, and (b) the California courts have recognized an "implied" consent where the recording party has knowingly agreed to be recorded and the other party is informed of or knows the conversation is being recorded but still continues with the conversation.

I believe that several telephone companies are offering recording services that feature a beep during the recording period as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top