By Ed Opperman
Yes, but before recording a call with a debt collector or collection
agency representative, you must be aware of the guidelines and
requirements, which are different under federal law and from state to
state.
Federal recording law says that at least one party taking part in the
call MUST consent to the recording. (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(d)). This
means recording a call you are not involved in is illegal throughout the
U.S. UNLESS you are a business and the call is occurring on a phone
line or extension you are paying for. Federal law applies when the phone
call extends over state lines (example: a person in California calling a
person or company in Texas).
Certain states require that for a phone call within the same state
only ONE party (and this could be you) involved in a multi-party phone
call (2 or more persons) need to give consent. Other states require that
ALL parties involved in a phone call or conversation be made aware of
the intent to record before you can actually proceed to record the call.
STATES REQUIRING ONE PARTY CONSENT
(only the party recording need consent)
Alabama Indiana New Jersey South Dakota
Alaska Iowa New Mexico Tennessee
Arizona Kansas New York Texas
Arkansas Kentucky North Carolina Utah
Colorado Louisiana North Dakota Vermont
Delaware Maine Ohio Virginia
Dst. Columbia Minnesota Oklahoma West Virginia
Georgia Mississippi Oregon Wisconsin
Hawaii Missouri Rhode Island Wyoming
Idaho Nebraska South Carolina
For informational purposes only and not legal advise.
All-party consent requires everyone within the conversation to be made aware or notified of intent to record the call.
STATES REQUIRING ALL PARTY CONSENT
(All parties must consent to the recording)
California Illinois Michigan Pennsylvania
Connecticut Maryland Montana Washington
Florida Massachusetts New Hampshire Nevada
For informational purposes only and not legal advise.
Recording Telephone Calls In Different States – Interesting Information
Arizona
Arizona is a “one-party” state, ARS 13-3005.A(1)(2), and also permits a
telephone “subscriber” (the person who orders the phone service and
whose name is on the bill) to tape (intercept) calls without being a
party to the conversation and without requiring any notification to any
parties to the call, ARS 13-3012(5)(c).
California
California prohibits telephone monitoring or recording, including the
use of information obtained through interception unless all parties to
the conversation consent (California Penal Code Sections 631 & 632).
There is no statutory business telephone exception and the relevant
case law all but excludes this possibility. California courts have
recognized “implied” consent as being sufficient to satisfy the statute
where one party has expressly agreed to the taping and the other
continues the conversation after having been informed that the call is
being recorded. Violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500,
imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. A civil plaintiff may
recover the greater of $3,000 or three times the amount of any actual
damages sustained.
Although California is a two-party state, it is also legal to record a
conversation if you include a beep on the recorder and for the parties
to hear.
Connecticut
Connecticut became a two-party consent approximately 3 years ago. The
State Police in that state are strict and do the law. Especially
interesting since their actions of illegally recording the telephone
calls of prisoners at the individual barrack when arrested, are what led
to the enactment of the two party law.
Illinois
Illinois is a two-party state, by statute. 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.
Indiana
In the state of Indiana it is one party authorization. As far as what is
admissible in court it is still being tested per each case individually
by the prosecutors office in the county in which the investigation or
case was done.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts requires consent of al parties unless another exception
applies (Massachusetts Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272, Sec. 99). Telephone
equipment, which is furnished to a phone company subscriber and used in
the ordinary course of business, is excluded from the definition of
unlawful interception devices (Id. at 99(B)(3)). Office
intercommunication systems used in the ordinary course of business are
similarly exempt (Id. at 99(D)(1)(b)). The criminal penalty is a fine of
up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. In civil
litigation, an injured party may recover actual and punitive damages as
well as costs and fees. It is a separate violation to divulge or use the
information garnered through unlawful interception and an additional
penalty of up to two years in prison or $5,000 may be imposed on this
count.
New York
New York is a one party state, however some courts will not admit an
interview with a witness to an event if they were not informed they were
being recorded. Apparently the judge may use his discretion.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania requires the consent of all parties. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat.
Ann. Sec. 5704(4) with the following exception: any individual may
record a phone conversation without the other party’s consent if:
1. The non-consenting party threatens the life or physical well being of the consenting party, or any member of his/her family.
2. The non-consenting party commits any criminal action (the statute
specifically uses the example of telling the consenting party that they
have marijuana they want the consenter to buy, but does state ANY
criminal act).
Felony penalties may be imposed for violation of the Pennsylvania statute
Washington
Washington requires the consent of all parties. Some companies manage to
work around that by going to the Indian reservations or any federally
owned property to make the call – Federal law is a one party consent.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin is currently a one-party state though recent attempts in the
legislature there have attempted, unsuccessfully so far, to change it to
two-party. Even so, any evidence gathered by a one-party consensual
recording is inadmissible except in murder or drug cases, as they say.
The Wisconsin Stats 885.365 Recorded telephone conversation (1)
states “Evidence obtained as the result of the use of voice recording
equipment for recording of telephone conversations, by way of
interception of a communication or in any other number, shall be totally
inadmissible in the court of this state in civil actions, except as
provided by 968.28 to 968.37.” Exceptions are it the party is informed
before the recording is informed at the time that the conversation is
being recorded and that any evidence thereby obtained may be used in a
court of law or such recording is made through a recorder connector
proved by the telecommunications utility as defined in WI Stats 968.28 –
968.37 (which is the stat for court ordered wiretaps) which
automatically produces a distinctive recorder tone that is repeated at
intervals of approximately 15 seconds. Fire department or law
enforcement agencies are exempt as are court ordered wire tapes.
Also a recording on the phone made from a out of state call or made
to an out of state party, has to have the party informed of the
recording and his consent or the tone on line, every 15 seconds, or a
consent in writing before the recording is started.
Needless to say this does not allow a person not a party to the
conversation to record any part of the conversation without the parties
to the conversation being informed the third party is recording the
conversation.
References
Electronic Communications Privacy Act. United States Code. Title 18.
Crimes And Criminal Procedure. Part I – Crimes. Chapter 119 – Wire And
Electronic Communications Interception And Interception Of Oral
Communications.
http://floridalawfirm.com/privacy.html
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: A Practical Guide to
Taping Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations in the 50 States and D.C.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
Broadcast of Telephone Conversations, 47 C.F.R. §73.1206 (1989)
P.L. 99-508 (“The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986″), amending 18 U.S.C. § 2510 -…
18 U.S.C. § 2510 – … (1999) (Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications)
FCC Consumer Information Bureau
http://www.fcc.gov/cib/
“Recording Telephone Conversations”
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/record.html
“Interception And Divulgence Of Radio Communications”
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/investigation.html
U.S. Department of Justice
http://www.usdoj.gov/
USA Bulletin, September 1997 Vol. 45, No. 5, 6. Electronic Investigative Techniques I, II:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab4505.pdf,
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab4506.pdf
Telephone Tape Recording Law. Ralph Thomas. National Association Of Investigative Specialists.
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.tel.tape.law.html
Ed Opperman is the president of Opperman Investigations Inc He is also the owner of
http://WWW.EmailRevealer.com
He invites you to visit his blog where he gives step by step
instruction, advice and warnings on how to become a private
investigator.Including, State by State licensing requirements, PI
schools and reputable Integrity Investigation companies
http://oppermaninvestigations.blogspot.com/ 
