Topic: One Party States - The LIST

[Flyingifr]

"Here is a list of one-party states - where you don't need to tell the bill collector that you are taping the conversation:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/20030519d1.asp

They are:

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

"

[Flyingifr]

Vermont Courts Home Page: http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/default.aspx

Rules: http://198.187.128.12/vermont/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0

[Dragon]

In Florida if the conversation is directed to/at you, it is ok to record. Wire-tapping and eavesdropping laws only come into play if you are a third party and recording.

[rubyruby27]

Does any Florida experts know if this is true.

[Dragon]

yes, I have first hand knowledge. I helped a guy in Miami with a felony charge of wiretapping get it dismissed. He stuck a recorder in a cops face. I have plenty of case law on the matter, and his motions, etc. The bottom line is, if the conversation is directed at you there is no interception as a third party.

[E. Normis Debtor]

This taping thing is highly over rated.  Tape the friggin call.  They have no way of knowing if you are or aren't taping.

If you are suing in Federal Court, the tape can be admissible as evidence regardless of what state is involved.

Outside of California, I'm not aware of any state's statutes that provides a private right of action against someone who fails to provide disclosure a call is being recorded.

And in a 2 party state, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a DA to pursue a criminal charge of recording a phone call, initiated to or from your home phone, when you had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the call would violate the law.

[Flyingifr]

This taping thing is highly over rated.  Tape the friggin call.  They have no way of knowing if you are or aren't taping.

If you are suing in Federal Court, the tape can be admissible as evidence regardless of what state is involved.

Outside of California, I'm not aware of any state's statutes that provides a private right of action against someone who fails to provide disclosure a call is being recorded.

And in a 2 party state, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a DA to pursue a criminal charge of recording a phone call, initiated to or from your home phone, when you had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the call would violate the law.

How quickly we forgot Linda Tripp.

[E. Normis Debtor]

Yes, and as I recall the Maryland AG was reluctant to pursue the illegality of the matter, but was pressured to do so by 20+ republican legislators. Charges were eventually dismissed.

[wayhigh]

In her case it was pretty blatent. She admitted that she knew it was illegal and still did it.

She's lucky she wasn't sued for the damages in civil court by Clinton. (That's allowed.) Imagine how much being impeached as president would be worth..

WH

Yes, and as I recall the Maryland AG was reluctant to pursue the illegality of the matter, but was pressured to do so by 20+ republican legislators. Charges were eventually dismissed.

[deepkimchee]

Does the one party rule go the other way?  Can creditors tape debtors as well, especially OC.

[NotBonJovi]

The "one-party" rule has nothing to do with debt collections per se.

It simply means in a one-party state, one has the to have the permission of one of the parties privy to the conversation in order to record. Who the party is or what the party does for a living has nothing to do with the state's laws.

[TestFlight]

I wonder if the other side stating the call may be recorded should give the 2nd party every right to record the call themselves without notifying the first party? They said the call may be recorded but they don't say its them in most cases.
I guess what I am thinking is a person should have every right to have their own copy of any conversation that is being recorded.

[CleaningUp]

Your thinking is generally correct.

[D]

I am in PA which is a 2 party state - when they clearly say they are recording the call, I don't mention that I am taping.  If they don't say they are taping the call at the beginning of the message before we get into the meat of the call, I ask - are you recording this call, if they say yes, then I usually say "me too" and then get into.  No one has ever minded that I am taping

[kevinmanheim]

I am in PA which is a 2 party state - when they clearly say they are recording the call, I don't mention that I am taping.  If they don't say they are taping the call at the beginning of the message before we get into the meat of the call, I ask - are you recording this call, if they say yes, then I usually say "me too" and then get into.  No one has ever minded that I am taping

Some CA's and creditors get upset about you taping them, and they end the call.

What I have always done is to say I agree when they say the call may be recorded. It's not so much of a tip off that you are recording, but it serves the same purpose.