About the California wire tapping laws

calvine

New Member
Jurisdiction
California
i'm a believer that the laws exist to defend what is morally correct, not defend what is morally incorrect.

so which leads me to a situation. what if there is a criminal. trying to remove any ways of getting caught(no text conversation, no recorded phone calls allowed, because these are the ways he'd get caught and lose in court, he doesn't want that, so he says it's not allowed). so the transaction is purely over the phone. so he's twisting wiretapping laws to defend what is morally incorrect, he has a history of robbing people, etc. he can't get caught, the law defends him(so as he claims), and so he continues making people victims.

i feel this is wrong. i feel i should be able to record him, IF AND ONLY IF i can use it in court if need be. i'm not recording him and posting it online to shame him. this is really to fight for what is morally correct, and stop someone who is taking advantage of victims on a wide scale.

the illegal to record laws originally in my opinion are against what is morally incorrect, like putting up hidden cameras in changing rooms etc is morally incorrect.

it's gotten to the point, people are either heavily misinterpreting this law(i hope so), or it needs to be revised/rewritten/clarified. just my opinions here. i think it shouldn't defend crime or shield crime from getting caught.

can i record a suspected criminal activity taking place over the phone if i need to use it in court to defend myself?

moving out of california is not an option, and quitting my employer is not an option.
 
i'm a believer that the laws exist to defend what is morally correct, not defend what is morally incorrect.

so which leads me to a situation. what if there is a criminal. trying to remove any ways of getting caught(no text conversation, no recorded phone calls allowed, because these are the ways he'd get caught and lose in court, he doesn't want that, so he says it's not allowed). so the transaction is purely over the phone. so he's twisting wiretapping laws to defend what is morally incorrect, he has a history of robbing people, etc. he can't get caught, the law defends him(so as he claims), and so he continues making people victims.

i feel this is wrong. i feel i should be able to record him, IF AND ONLY IF i can use it in court if need be. i'm not recording him and posting it online to shame him. this is really to fight for what is morally correct, and stop someone who is taking advantage of victims on a wide scale.

the illegal to record laws originally in my opinion are against what is morally incorrect, like putting up hidden cameras in changing rooms etc is morally incorrect.

it's gotten to the point, people are either heavily misinterpreting this law(i hope so), or it needs to be revised/rewritten/clarified. just my opinions here. i think it shouldn't defend crime or shield crime from getting caught.

can i record a suspected criminal activity taking place over the phone if i need to use it in court to defend myself?

moving out of california is not an option, and quitting my employer is not an option.
It doesn't matter what is morally correct (usually), just what is legally correct (sometimes moral and legal are on the same side...not always, but sometimes). If someone is breaking the law go to the police. Perhaps they will get a wiretap warrant.
 
can i record a suspected criminal activity taking place over the phone if i need to use it in court to defend myself?

I presume you (or anyone for that matter) can do almost anything any other human can do, maybe even MORE things than some other humans can do.

I'm NOT directing you to do anything.

I'm simply saying that you wish to throw a rock through a school building window, you have the capability to throw a rock through said window.

Now, back to the laws of California regarding recordings.

California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632.

Eleven states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.


it used to be occasional and now is common, probably due to the increase in easy to use technology, often in the "smart phones." More people and businesses utilize technology to secretly record statements and comments of potential adversaries or witnesses, knowing that if the story given by the person alters, they can be impeached with such unassailable evidence.

There is only one problem. Such evidence is not only normally not admissible in any court of law, but is quite often illegal to obtain. There are limited circumstances in some jurisdictions in which such evidence may be utilized and this article discusses the basic law applicable to the secret recording of such conversations.

Basic Law:

California has some of the strongest laws in the country on wiretapping. Put simply, absent consent of all parties, they are not only not admissible into evidence, but a crime to obtain and allow the "injured party" to sue. Admittedly, damages are hard to prove in these cases. Recognizing this, the statutes provide for a multiplier of damages should the civil case be proven. Further, given the cost of litigation and the fact that the act is a crime, the exposure can be significant.

While obviously enacted to protect privacy rights, the statutes were also enacted to protect consumers in a world of mass telemarketing. Contracts were often claimed to have been made by customers in telephone calls and "proven" by secret recordings. That type of practice was eliminated but the law went much further in its effects.

California Law Penal Code § 632, enacted under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, makes it illegal for an individual to monitor or record a "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. California is known as a "two-party" state, which means that recordings are not allowed unless all parties to the conversation consent to the recording.

Under Penal Code § 632(c), "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, 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.

A violation of Penal Code § 632 can lead to a fine of up to $2,500 and/or imprisonment for up to a year (misdemeanor). In addition, the violator may be subject to civil liability in the amount of $5,000 or three times the amount of any actual damages sustained as a result.

Secret Recording of Conversations in California - A Crime | Stimmel Law
 
No, not without the consent of ALL parties.

See California Penal Code § 632
why does this law shield criminals instead of shielding victims? i dont' want to move out of california. every former trucking company i worked for has committed pay embezzlement. i get letters in the mail all the time about them losing civil lawsuits and oweing drivers money.

my current employer has been the best, but they still are fully attempting to stack the cards in their favor and remove chances of getting caught in advance. instead of taking it up the rear end when it comes my way, how about the company gets a nice solid uppercut from the justice system? without that there is no incentive for them to stop.

keep in mind, i am losing my family at home, my health, my time on this earth, risking my driving record, and risking my life every day, for money they promised, i safely deliver loads, and do my end of the bargain, when time to pay up they don't live up to theirs. i get cheated, regularly.

i seriously think this law needs to be rewritten/revised/clarified, if it indeed is shielding the criminals instead of shielding victims. my suggestion would be, we CAN, record, IF AND ONLY IF, it's to be used in court. NOT for defamation purposes on youtube etc.
 
why does this law shield criminals instead of shielding victims? i dont' want to move out of california. every former trucking company i worked for has committed pay embezzlement. i get letters in the mail all the time about them losing civil lawsuits and oweing drivers money.

my current employer has been the best, but they still are fully attempting to stack the cards in their favor and remove chances of getting caught in advance. instead of taking it up the rear end when it comes my way, how about the company gets a nice solid uppercut from the justice system? without that there is no incentive for them to stop.

keep in mind, i am losing my family at home, my health, my time on this earth, risking my driving record, and risking my life every day, for money they promised, i safely deliver loads, and do my end of the bargain, when time to pay up they don't live up to theirs. i get cheated, regularly.

i seriously think this law needs to be rewritten/revised/clarified, if it indeed is shielding the criminals instead of shielding victims. my suggestion would be, we CAN, record, IF AND ONLY IF, it's to be used in court. NOT for defamation purposes on youtube etc.
Go re-read your 1st posting. You gave no information...really you posted it as a hypothetical situation. As such you were given very general answers with the law that is broken by recording a conversation without consent.

Report your employer to the Labor Board. Perhaps @cbg can advise you better.
 
when time to pay up they don't live up to theirs. i get cheated, regularly.

Then keep appropriate records and file a lawsuit if a wage claim with the state doesn't work.

I don't know what phone conversations have to do with anything. You can either document your work or you can't.
 
why does this law shield criminals instead of shielding victims?

The law protects privacy and the expectations of people when having conversations. That's the goal, but it does allow for some exceptions. The conversations can be recorded by police with a warrant, so if you think there is something truly criminal going on, you report it to the police and let the police conduct a lawful investigation into the alleged crime.

You don't get to violate the law to play criminal investigator yourself. In general, society frowns on vigilante kind of activity.
 
In general, society frowns on vigilante kind of activity.
In my neighborhood there is signs all over the place about 'community watch', encouraging community members to look out for crime and to report it. you have NO evidence 'society frowns upon vigilante kind of activity'. every ounce of evidence suggests otherwise. you got these signs plastered all over the neighborhoods of california. each of these sings ENCOURAGES vigilante behavior. the police departments themselves openly say they support it.

The ONLY type of people who'd frown upon this vigilante behavior, would be the criminals themselves. so again, why are we trying to defend criminals here? i think the law should defend the victims against criminals.

alindleyparknc.com_wp_content_uploads_2015_09_Community_Watch.png
watch-480x480.png
awww.everythinglongbeach.com_wp_content_uploads_2014_02_dlba_community_watch_starte.jpg awww_chulavistaca_gov_Home_ShowPublishedImage_10000_636105863620770000_.jpg
 
Last edited:
What is ethical and what is moral and what is neither and what is both, is not always immediately clear, either.
 
In my neighborhood there is signs all over the place about 'community watch', encouraging community members to look out for crime and to report it. you have NO evidence 'society frowns upon vigilante kind of activity'. every ounce of evidence suggests otherwise. you got these signs plastered all over the neighborhoods of california. each of these sings ENCOURAGES vigilante behavior. the police departments themselves openly say they support it.

The ONLY type of people who'd frown upon this vigilante behavior, would be the criminals themselves. so again, why are we trying to defend criminals here? i think the law should defend the victims against criminals.

All of this speaks to reporting suspicious activity, just as you've been told to do. Neighborhood Watch programs are the opposite of vigilantism.
 
In my neighborhood there is signs all over the place about 'community watch', encouraging community members to look out for crime and to report it. you have NO evidence 'society frowns upon vigilante kind of activity'.

No, neighborhood watches are NOT vigilantism. Vigilantism is where someone other than law enforcement takes it upon themselves to enforce the law. Neighborhood watches do nothing of the sort. They report suspicious activity to the police and let the police investigate and enforce the law. You reporting your concerns to the police, as I suggested you do, is exactly what neighborhood watch groups do. They don't go out to do investigations themselves. They don't try to take the law into their own hands. Instead, they leave investigation and enforcement to the police.
 
If you have need for a restraining order and obtain one the court could authorize you to record phone calls from the restrained party.
Otherwise why not simply avoid further contact with this person and not worry about it?
 
If you have need for a restraining order and obtain one the court could authorize you to record phone calls from the restrained party.
Otherwise why not simply avoid further contact with this person and not worry about it?
The court can authorize one to break the law?
 
If the court authorizes it then it isn't breaking the law. It is not uncommon, especially in domestic issues. One just has to justify the reasonable need.
 
If the court authorizes it then it isn't breaking the law. It is not uncommon, especially in domestic issues. One just has to justify the reasonable need.

Given the way the California statute is written I question whether a court in a civil proceeding has the authority to issue such an order. The statute provides an exception for law enforcement to record conversations for their criminal investigations when they obtain the required court order, but I see nothing that suggests a court order in a civil case would override the prohibition in the statute.
 
I see nothing that suggests a court order in a civil case would override the prohibition in the statute.


If I received a petition requesting permission for Citizen Bobby to record Citizen Jimmy, I sure as heck wouldn't approve it, even if Citizen Bobby had a "decoder ring", "Lil G Man Badge", and a "right purty ID Card".

Your analysis is on point.
 
If the court authorizes it then it isn't breaking the law. It is not uncommon, especially in domestic issues. One just has to justify the reasonable need.
Really - is that a blanket statement? Is it your assertion that the local county court in California can authorize any unlawful act?
 
Back
Top