This website serves two (2) purposes. One reason is to protect yourself. The second reason is to amass information that will be used in an upcomming publication concerning alleged or proven misconduct by law enforcement against civil public. The title of this publication will be entitled "Liar, Liar, Badge on Fire".

Legal Excerpts on this subject, the subject of Audio recording and Private Audio recording.

1. Main Article (HERE)

"The federal wiretap law was amended in 1986 and 1994 to expand the definition of electronic communications to include cellular and cordless phone conversations. Under the statute, cellular and cordless phone conversations can be recorded with the consent of one party.

Many of the state laws also specifically apply to cellular and cordless calls, and others are broad enough — by covering all "electronic" communications — to cover these methods of communication."

2. Main Article (HERE)

"Of the 50 states, 38, as well as the District of Columbia, allow you to record a conversation to which you are a party without informing the other parties you are doing so. Federal wiretap statutes also permit one-party-consent recording of telephone conversations in most circumstances.¹ Twelve states forbid the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties. Those states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.² (This is where the SCL logo "NO LIES" vehicle sticker informs all parties of the intent to record all conversations, of all occupants in YOUR vehicle at all times).

The federal wiretap law, passed in 1968, permits surreptitious recording of conversations when one party consents, "unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State." Amendments signed into law in 1986 and 1994 expand the prohibitions to unauthorized interception of most forms of electronic communications, including satellite transmissions, cellular phone conversations, computer data transmissions and cordless phone conversations."

Notes

1. 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. (1999) (Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications).

2. Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632; Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 52-570d; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 934.03; Ill. Rev. Stat. ch.720, para. 5/14-1 to 5/14-6; Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402; Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272, § 99; Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c; Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213; Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.620, as interpreted in Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998) (holding that Nevada wiretap statute requires all-party consent); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2;18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 5703, 5704; Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030.

3. See, e.g., Krauss v. Globe Int'l, Inc., No. 18008-92 (N.Y. Sup.Ct. Sept. 11, 1995) (holding New York law applies to interstate phone call where injury occurred in New York).

4. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 121 S. Ct. 1753 (2001).

5. 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206 (1989).