6 ms·

Mark reportedly lives in California, a two-party state. Wouldn’t he be running afoul of wiretapping laws, regardless if he’s recording criminals?

francislavoie 8y ago
Sure, but do you really think the criminals will present him with a lawsuit... when they literally stole from him?
- EGreg 8y ago
  What if the DA does?
- TallGuyShort 8y ago
  Dumber lawsuits than that have won.
ectospheno 8y ago
You are allowed to record crimes in progress in two party states.
otterley 8y ago
Wiretapping is the recording of a telephone conversation (or modern equivalent). If it’s not a telephone conversation, it’s not subject to the law’s consent requirements.
gnopgnip 8y ago
This all happened in a suburb of Chicago
LinuxBender 8y ago
How does Amazon and Google get away with it? When you put their listening devices in your home, do you sign a legally binding contract? Honest question, I've never bought one. If a contract is sufficient, does it have to be signed in writing or witnessed? If not, then could he have a sign at his door stating that acquiring the package provides consent to monitoring? Is there a lawyer here that could answer those questions, pro bono? [Edit] Maybe it would be sufficient to put wording on the box that basically says, "by touching or taking this packages.... yada yada..."
- candiodari 8y ago
  (not legal advice and so on) One of the first rules of the legal system is that you don't get to violate the law. This INCLUDES the situation where someone else violates the law first. In many places this principle is repeated. For instance, you DO NOT get to bump someone's car if they run a red light for instance. (and no, EVEN the situation where you literally had no choice still isn't an excuse. There is only the small "non-exception" that earlier laws can override later laws. For instance, keeping someone safe takes precedence over obeying traffic lights. If you can avoid an accident by running a red light you MUST do so. There is an explicitly defined order in which laws can override one another, even though I would strongly agree that it's not exactly a clear thing) So the thief (or whoever) can sue this person for things like willful damage to property, violation of privacy, ... and that the package was stolen won't be a valid defense.
  - LinuxBender 8y ago
    I am not suggesting eye for an eye. My question is regarding: What is legally required to obtain consent to record in this case?
  - stale2002 8y ago
    > So the thief (or whoever) can sue this person Ah, see, but lack of enforcement from the police goes both ways! If the police are unwilling to go after petty theft cases, why would they bother with the even smaller crime of "wiretapping" thieves? Is the opportunist thief likely to have the resources to go after you for this? Almost certainly not. And even then, it is additionally unlikely that a judge and jury would convict and punish someone. Stories, narratives, and being perceived to be "in the right" go a long way in the criminal justice system, which is enforced by people, not the legal words on a piece of paper.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      Well, it's not that simple. The thief could simply sue under private law (private law = anything that's not criminal law). Privacy violation, for example, is private law. Damage to property, is both criminal and private law. There's certainly options. Granted, the author of the video cannot be sent to jail in such a case, but it is a near-certainty that he'll have to pay. Second, I don't think the odds of the police pursuing this are quite as small as you perceive them to be. For one, the thief may BE a police officer. What do you propose happens then ? Do you think criminal police officers just arrest themselves ? I mean, I sort of understand the "the law is just under all circumstances and the law sees all" train of thought, all nice, safe and secure. In reality, law is an imperfect and sometimes outright malicious system implemented by imperfect and sometimes outright malicious people. So I'd be interested in your opinion of what happens if the thief is an ill-tempered police officer, with the predisposition of Joe Arpaio towards you. You might note that this person was not just any police officer, but a 24-year sheriff (chief) of the police of a 4 million people county, including a large city. Those people are part of the police too, and can be very high up in the police force. > judge and jury Jury is only in criminal law. In other words, only if you're sued by the public prosecutor. Otherwise, no jury trial. And good luck convincing the jury if a police officer is testifying against you. I will say, it's not impossible. However, ... > Stories, narratives, and being perceived to be "in the right" go a long way in the criminal justice system Can I just say, I pity your lawyer if you ever apply this way of thinking in an actual case. In short: it does not. Police and public prosecutors are evaluated on their conviction rate (just ask a police officer. You should be very surprised that he knows that figure in the first place). There's even bonuses for achieving certain conviction rates (and of course you get fired below ...). Secondly there's a sort of constant "contest" between officers for the highest conviction rate. In the criminal justice system, therefore, the primary driver of who the police pursue is whether they believe they'll get a conviction. Nothing, and I do mean absolutely nothing, else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (That doesn't mean they don't apply sanity, but realistically, if that happens, it's the officer on the ground and they are under VERY high pressure to do "something", like arrest someone. "This guy is not innocent, let's arrest him" definitely happens regularly. If the officer on site doesn't just let you go, it is utter folly to count on anyone else in the criminal justice system to take stories or narratives into account)

francislavoie 8y ago

Sure, but do you really think the criminals will present him with a lawsuit... when they literally stole from him?

EGreg 8y ago
What if the DA does?
TallGuyShort 8y ago
Dumber lawsuits than that have won.

ectospheno 8y ago

You are allowed to record crimes in progress in two party states.

otterley 8y ago

Wiretapping is the recording of a telephone conversation (or modern equivalent). If it’s not a telephone conversation, it’s not subject to the law’s consent requirements.

gnopgnip 8y ago

This all happened in a suburb of Chicago

LinuxBender 8y ago

How does Amazon and Google get away with it? When you put their listening devices in your home, do you sign a legally binding contract? Honest question, I've never bought one. If a contract is sufficient, does it have to be signed in writing or witnessed? If not, then could he have a sign at his door stating that acquiring the package provides consent to monitoring? Is there a lawyer here that could answer those questions, pro bono? [Edit] Maybe it would be sufficient to put wording on the box that basically says, "by touching or taking this packages.... yada yada..."

candiodari 8y ago
(not legal advice and so on) One of the first rules of the legal system is that you don't get to violate the law. This INCLUDES the situation where someone else violates the law first. In many places this principle is repeated. For instance, you DO NOT get to bump someone's car if they run a red light for instance. (and no, EVEN the situation where you literally had no choice still isn't an excuse. There is only the small "non-exception" that earlier laws can override later laws. For instance, keeping someone safe takes precedence over obeying traffic lights. If you can avoid an accident by running a red light you MUST do so. There is an explicitly defined order in which laws can override one another, even though I would strongly agree that it's not exactly a clear thing) So the thief (or whoever) can sue this person for things like willful damage to property, violation of privacy, ... and that the package was stolen won't be a valid defense.
- LinuxBender 8y ago
  I am not suggesting eye for an eye. My question is regarding: What is legally required to obtain consent to record in this case?
- stale2002 8y ago
  > So the thief (or whoever) can sue this person Ah, see, but lack of enforcement from the police goes both ways! If the police are unwilling to go after petty theft cases, why would they bother with the even smaller crime of "wiretapping" thieves? Is the opportunist thief likely to have the resources to go after you for this? Almost certainly not. And even then, it is additionally unlikely that a judge and jury would convict and punish someone. Stories, narratives, and being perceived to be "in the right" go a long way in the criminal justice system, which is enforced by people, not the legal words on a piece of paper.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Well, it's not that simple. The thief could simply sue under private law (private law = anything that's not criminal law). Privacy violation, for example, is private law. Damage to property, is both criminal and private law. There's certainly options. Granted, the author of the video cannot be sent to jail in such a case, but it is a near-certainty that he'll have to pay. Second, I don't think the odds of the police pursuing this are quite as small as you perceive them to be. For one, the thief may BE a police officer. What do you propose happens then ? Do you think criminal police officers just arrest themselves ? I mean, I sort of understand the "the law is just under all circumstances and the law sees all" train of thought, all nice, safe and secure. In reality, law is an imperfect and sometimes outright malicious system implemented by imperfect and sometimes outright malicious people. So I'd be interested in your opinion of what happens if the thief is an ill-tempered police officer, with the predisposition of Joe Arpaio towards you. You might note that this person was not just any police officer, but a 24-year sheriff (chief) of the police of a 4 million people county, including a large city. Those people are part of the police too, and can be very high up in the police force. > judge and jury Jury is only in criminal law. In other words, only if you're sued by the public prosecutor. Otherwise, no jury trial. And good luck convincing the jury if a police officer is testifying against you. I will say, it's not impossible. However, ... > Stories, narratives, and being perceived to be "in the right" go a long way in the criminal justice system Can I just say, I pity your lawyer if you ever apply this way of thinking in an actual case. In short: it does not. Police and public prosecutors are evaluated on their conviction rate (just ask a police officer. You should be very surprised that he knows that figure in the first place). There's even bonuses for achieving certain conviction rates (and of course you get fired below ...). Secondly there's a sort of constant "contest" between officers for the highest conviction rate. In the criminal justice system, therefore, the primary driver of who the police pursue is whether they believe they'll get a conviction. Nothing, and I do mean absolutely nothing, else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (That doesn't mean they don't apply sanity, but realistically, if that happens, it's the officer on the ground and they are under VERY high pressure to do "something", like arrest someone. "This guy is not innocent, let's arrest him" definitely happens regularly. If the officer on site doesn't just let you go, it is utter folly to count on anyone else in the criminal justice system to take stories or narratives into account)