Re: big trouble

More | Report Post

On 8/24/03, Catherine Hudson wrote:
> my brother was arrested based on a recorded converstation
> the detective on the case gained consent to record
> converstation from plaintiff the converstation was
> recorded with plaintiff knowledge only by the detective
> not the plaintiff. My brother was not made aware of
> recording of converstation Oregon is a one party state!
> However federal law says that you cannot record a
> converstation you are not party too. The detective was not
> party to the conversation and in fact directed plaintiff
> on questions to ask defendant my brother. He was arrested
> as a result of this taped conversation and is faceing
> major jail time. Any help would be appreciated thank you
> chatty

The law is if Joe gives permission to a detective to record
a telephone conversation with Tom, tom does not need to
know, regardless of a one or two party state and a warrant
is not needed to tape it, sorry. United States v. White, 401
US 745(1971). The police are always in line with phone
recordings/wiretaps, they DO NOT want any evidence thrown
out, but see what his Attorney says about it.

Re: big trouble, 9/10/03, by sillyme.

First Amendment Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST