Minnesota driving while fatigue law
- Thread starter Scuba
- Start date
Scuba
Veteran Expediter
I believe that is if you are recording a phone call as that is the wire tap law in Arkansas and the one person that knows about it must talk on the recording. But just to record a converstion that is face to face i don't think it is required to tell them anything
Fart smeller? LOL!!! Are you old enough to remember the term applied to a kid who smelled farts back in the late 50's and early 60's? We had a name for them around here back then. They were called "GORPS". LOL!! I had not thought of that for YEARS!!! That brings back many fine memories of boyhood "Put Down" sessions!!!
You are correct about the polititions, both parties suck. They are only out to rip off the people. They KNOW that we will do little to nothing to retain the power that is OURS under our Constitution. They may be right. This past election really drove home that fact. We really only have 2010 to take back control or I fear that 2010 will be that last election held in the United States. The country will end at that piont and a "New" one will take it's place. It will NOT be a good thing. NOTHING that our polititions have done in the last 30 years has been to OUR benefit. All they have done and continue to do is usurp OUR power and we allow it to happen.
In Arkansas, as well as most states, the law reads, "Intercepting or recording any wire, oral, cellular or cordless phone conversation is a misdemeanor in Arkansas, unless the person recording is a party to the conversation, or one of the parties to the conversation has given prior consent." (Ark. Code § 5-60-120.) However, it is not unlawful for law enforcement investigations. (Ark. Code § 5-60-120.)
Federal law states that eavesdropping, or the intercepting and recording of electronic communications, cannot be be performed without the consent of at least one party of the conversation. Many states have adopted the federal statues and have extended that to in-person oral communications.
Twelve states, however, have extended it to apply to all parties of the conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
Here is an excellent rundown of the laws and how they are applied, including the various state laws, including hidden camera video, reasonable expectation of privacy, and stuff like that. Pretty interesting.
"Can We Tape?"
Well, I for one frankly just don't care WHAT the law is or is not. I am going to tape, period. The Constitution has been thrown out and all bets are now off. What is good for the goose is good for this Michigander!!! If they are going to tread on this snake they can expect to get struck!!!
This one I WILL fight!! I pick what I go after. I pick this one.
I might try to figure a was to wire the truck as well. I don't TRUST these people.
This one I WILL fight!! I pick what I go after. I pick this one.
I might try to figure a was to wire the truck as well. I don't TRUST these people.
theoldprof
Veteran Expediter
You could post in VERY small lettering on an obscure part of the door that any conversation with this driver may be recorded, etc etc. Have your attorney word it so that if a person talks with you, that person is giving you permission to be recorded.
I could if I cared!!! LOL!! Hey, I look at it this way. They are trashing the Constitution every day, SO, all bets are off!! Turn about is fair play!!! 
In states where all parties much give consent, the consent must be verifiable, meaning it must be recorded. All you have to do is tell them something like, "You should know that this conversation is being recorded." If they continue to talk, they have agreed to be recorded.
Telling them that they are being recored defeats the purpose. I want the everytime thing captured on tape. People will "behave" it they know that they are being taped. I want to capture the "attitude". Sorta like candid camera!!
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Turtle,
It don't matter what the law says, there is something that was settled in Michigan about self-incrimination a while back and our law has been a gray area since.
In one federal court case, the issue of recording of meetings without consent of other parties that took place in Michigan, NY, Maryland and DC was settled when the judge ruled that the recordings were allowable in the case because it was used to protect the party who did the recording and there are regulatory requirements to be maintained which were federal regulations, not state regulations. The recordings provided evidence that the regulations were being following while the management wanted to circumvent the regulations and the regulatory constraints. The defendants bought it up as illegal to do so under the state laws, cited some 40 different laws, including the wire tap laws and even RICO but the judge allowed it all into the case.
It don't matter what the law says, there is something that was settled in Michigan about self-incrimination a while back and our law has been a gray area since.
In one federal court case, the issue of recording of meetings without consent of other parties that took place in Michigan, NY, Maryland and DC was settled when the judge ruled that the recordings were allowable in the case because it was used to protect the party who did the recording and there are regulatory requirements to be maintained which were federal regulations, not state regulations. The recordings provided evidence that the regulations were being following while the management wanted to circumvent the regulations and the regulatory constraints. The defendants bought it up as illegal to do so under the state laws, cited some 40 different laws, including the wire tap laws and even RICO but the judge allowed it all into the case.