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

Well... i only have a tiny bit of good news for you.
Depending on the content of the conversation and if he has
any priors, he will probably only get probation.

Unfortunately, while the forefathers didn't add "within
reason" to the first amendment, the gov't somehow did.
Personally, i feel it is an infringement on our rights...
but they will argue that allowing us to demean others is an
infringement on their rights as well... so there's no real
happy medium. If we have one, we can't have the other.

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

First Amendment Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST