Felony Wiretapping?

[bigislander72]

Why won't they stick? The actions of the guy who got arrested seem to be exactly what the state of PA wants to eliminate...taping a conversation covertly.

I think you're influneced because the victim in this case was a cop. I doubt you would be whining so loudly if the victim was a housewife.

Who says I wouldnt? Suppose a soccer mom #1 is filming her kids game, and "intercepted without permission" soccer mom #2 conversation. She then presses "felony wiretapping" charges against soccer mom #1. I sure would be whining a lot then.

But I won't ever need to. That type of thing would be laughed out of court,(if it ever made it in the first place, which is doubtful) as this case should be. So you are right in part, because this would never make it to court if the "victim was a housewife".

If the charges are upheld and this sets a precident(I pray not) with the result being all conspiracy to commit murder/drug trafficking/admission of a crime type cases get thrown out because the only evidence against the suspect was obtained by recording without permission or a warrant in a public place, will you be supporting the flawed application of this law then?

[Gene L]

I don't think this case is designed toward soccor games.

I think it has to do with recording conversations or actions and then publishing them on "My Space."

In any case, many of you seem to believe the law has not been tested. I'm not sure of that.

[LPSS]

Who says I wouldnt? Suppose a soccer mom #1 is filming her kids game, and "intercepted without permission" soccer mom #2 conversation. She then presses "felony wiretapping" charges against soccer mom #1. I sure would be whining a lot then.

This example is entirely irrelevant. Such a public gathering would be openly available to record. Now, if mom #1 was using a boom mike to covertly audio record mom #2's private conversation while mom #2 sat in her personal vehicle, that would be illegal under the felony wiretapping law.

I wonder where the folks who have posted here would be standing if it was a LEO who was facing felony charges for recording the housewife he/she pulled over.

Nor does this example carry any weight, unless the officer is personally making covert recordings outside of his normal job duties. In Pennsylvania, officers notify motorists that the traffic stop is being audio recorded. In other states that only require one party to consent to the audio recording, the officer is the consenting party and the motorist does not need to be notified, nor does the motorist need to provide consent for the recording.

[Rapax]

I'm no lawyer so I can't state an official legal argument, however, my citizen intuition tells me the root of these wiretapping laws can be found in a CITIZEN'S right to privacy guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights is there to protect the INDIVIDUAL from the government not protect the GOVERNMENT from the individual. When you pin on the badge and go to work, you are not conducting your own personal business. You are an agent of the state and are conducting the state's business. I would support a citizen audio and video recording an agent of the state interrogating them in their own home. The citizen is the one who has a right to privacy, NOT the state. I believe it is an egregious misinterpretation to believe that the law is intended to shield public servants from the light of day being shined on the execution of their official duties. In fact, if they are performing their duties in an exemplary fashion, they should welcome the audio and video recording of it to substantiate their professional behavior. The opposite would in essence provide a shield to hide unprofessional and even worse illegal behavior. This would be contrary to the public good and contrary to an open government in a free society. I sincerely hope some court spells this out in a manner as clear as this before this country turns into a police state. If it has to go all the way to the Supreme court, so be it. Just tell me where to send my check to help pay the legal fees........So that's my two cents worth....I guess we shall see what the court(s) have to say about it.

There was recently a question on the day time milionaire show...it asked which of the following words are NEVER mentioned in the constitution...guess which one it was. PRIVACY. Privacy is an illusion. Every traffic stop is subject to open records...this includes the audio and video from the traffic stop. That being said...this criminal charge is petty and stupid. The cop "flexed" his authority to put it mildly..it is one of those he takes the ride anyway type charges. On a safety note it is STUPID AND DANGEROUS TO POINT ANYTHING AT A COP DURING A TRAFFIC STOP, YOUR HANDS SHOULD BE AS EMPTY AS POSSIBLE!!!

[MPSoldier84]

§ 5703. Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:

intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;
intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or
intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.

§ 5704. Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communications.
It shall not be unlawful under this chapter and no prior court approval shall be required for:

An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of wire or electronic communication service. However, no provider of wire or electronic communication service shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.
Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities, including, but not limited to, the crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications), where:
[deleted]
one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. However, no interception under this paragraph shall be made unless the Attorney General or a deputy attorney general designated in writing by the Attorney General, or the district attorney, or an assistant district attorney designated in writing by the district attorney, of the county wherein the interception is to be made, has reviewed the facts and is satisfied that the consent is voluntary and has given prior approval for the interception; however such interception shall be subject to the recording and record keeping requirements of section 5714(a) (relating to recording of intercepted communications) and that the Attorney General, deputy attorney general, district attorney or assistant district attorney authorizing the interception shall be the custodian of recorded evidence obtained therefrom;
the investigative or law enforcement officer meets in person with a suspected felon and wears a concealed electronic or mechanical device capable of intercepting or recording oral communications. However, no interception under this subparagraph may be used in any criminal prosecution except for a prosecution involving harm done to the investigative or law enforcement officer. This subparagraph shall not be construed to limit the interception and disclosure authority provided for in this subchapter; or
the requirements of this subparagraph are met. If an oral interception otherwise authorized under this paragraph will take place in the home of a nonconsenting party, then, in addition to the requirements of subparagraph (ii), the interception shall not be conducted until an order is first obtained from the president judge, or his designee who shall also be a judge, of a court of common pleas, authorizing such in-home interception, based upon an affidavit by an investigative or law enforcement officer that establishes probable cause for the issuance of such an order. No such order or affidavit shall be required where probable cause and exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes of this paragraph, an oral interception shall be deemed to take place in the home of a nonconsenting party only if both the consenting and nonconsenting parties are physically present in the home at the time of the interception.
Police and emergency communications systems to record telephone communications coming into and going out of the communications system of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency or a police department, fire department or county emergency center, if:
the telephones thereof are limited to the exclusive use of the communication system for administrative purposes and provided the communication system employs a periodic warning which indicates to the parties to the conversation that the call is being recorded;
all recordings made pursuant to this clause, all notes made therefrom, and all transcriptions thereof may be destroyed at any time, unless required with regard to a pending matter; and
at least one nonrecorded telephone line is made available for public use at the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency and at each police department, fire department or county emergency center.
A person, to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where all parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.
Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or communication common carrier acting at the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer or in the normal course of its business, to use a pen register or trap and trace device, or telecommunication identification interception device as provided in Subchapter E (relating to pen registers, trap and trace devices and telecommunication identification interception devices)..
Personnel of any public utility to record telephone conversations with utility customers or the general public relating to receiving and dispatching of emergency and service calls provided there is, during such recording, a periodic warning which indicates to the parties to the conversation that the call is being recorded.
A user, or any officer, employee or agent of such user, to record telephone communications between himself and a contractor or designer, or any officer, employee or agent of such contractor or designer, pertaining to excavation or demolition work or other related matters, if the user or its agent indicates to the parties to the conversation that the call will be or is being recorded. As used in this paragraph, the terms "user," "contractor," "demolition work," "designer" and "excavation work" shall have the meanings given to them in the act of December 10, 1974 (P.L.852, No.287), referred to as the Underground Utility Line Protection Law; and a one call system shall be considered for this purpose to be an agent of any user which is a member thereof.
A provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect the provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of the service.
A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public to divulge the contents of any such communication:
as otherwise authorized in this section or section 5717 (relating to investigative disclosure or use of contents of wire, electronic or oral communications or derivative evidence);
with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of the communication;
to a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward the communication to its destination; or
which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.

A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one directed to the person or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission of that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of the communication or an agent of the addressee or intended recipient.
Any person:
to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system configured so that the electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted:
(A) by a station for the use of the general public, or which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles or persons in distress;
(B) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile or public safety communication system, including police and fire systems, readily accessible to the general public;
(C) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band or general mobile radio services; or
(D) by any marine or aeronautical communication system;
to engage in any conduct which:
(A) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1105, 47 U.S.C. § 553); or
(B) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 605(a)) by section 705(b) of that act (47 U.S.C. § 605(b)); or
to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station, to the extent necessary to identify the source of the interference.
Other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system which utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provisions or use of the system, if the communication is not scrambled or encrypted.
Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities where the officer or the person is a party to the communication and there is reasonable cause to believe that:
the other party to the communication is either:
(A) holding a hostage; or (B) has barricaded himself and taken a position of confinement to avoid apprehension; and
that party:
(A) will resist with the use of weapons; or (B) is threatening suicide or harm to others.
An investigative officer, a law enforcement officer or employees of the Department of Corrections for State correctional facilities to intercept, record, monitor or divulge any telephone calls from or to an inmate in a facility under the following conditions:
The Department of Corrections shall adhere to the following procedures and restrictions when intercepting, recording, monitoring or divulging any telephone calls from or to an inmate in a State correctional facility as provided for by this paragraph:

(A) Before the implementation of this paragraph, all inmates of the facility shall be notified in writing that, as of the effective date of this paragraph, their telephone conversations may be intercepted, recorded, monitored or divulged.
(B) Unless otherwise provided for in this paragraph, after intercepting or recording a telephone conversation, only the superintendent, warden or a designee of the superintendent or warden or other chief administrative official or his or her designee shall have access to that recording.
(C) The contents of an intercepted and recorded telephone conversation shall be divulged only as is necessary to safeguard the orderly operation of the facility, in response to a court order or in the prosecution or investigation of any crime.

So as to safeguard the attorney-client privilege, the Department of Corrections shall not intercept, record, monitor or divulge any conversation between an inmate and an attorney.
Persons who are calling in to a facility to speak to an inmate shall be notified that the call may be recorded or monitored.

The Department of Corrections shall promulgate guidelines to implement the provisions of this paragraph for State correctional facilities.
An investigative officer, a law enforcement officer or employees of a county correctional facilities to intercept, record, monitor or divulge any telephone calls from or to an inmate in a facility under the following conditions:
The county correctional facility shall adhere to the following procedures and restrictions when intercepting, recording, monitoring or divulging any telephone calls from or to an inmate in a county correctional facility as provided for by this paragraph:

(A) Before the implementation of this paragraph, all inmates of the facility shall be notified in writing that, as of the effective date of this paragraph, their telephone conversations may be intercepted, recorded, monitored or divulged.
(B) Unless otherwise provided for in this paragraph, after intercepting or recording a telephone conversation, only the superintendent, warden or a designee of the superintendent or warden or other chief administrative official or his or her designee shall have access to that recording.
(C) The contents of an intercepted and recorded telephone conversation shall be divulged only as is necessary to safeguard the orderly operation of the facility, in response to a court order or in the prosecution or investigation of any crime.


So as to safeguard the attorney-client privilege, the county correctional facility shall not intercept, record, monitor or divulge any conversation between an inmate and an attorney.
Persons who are calling in to a facility to speak to an inmate shall be notified that the call may be recorded or monitored.

The superintendent, warden or a designee of the superintendent or warden or other chief administrative official of the county correctional system shall promulgate guidelines to implement the provisions of this paragraph for county correctional facilities.
The personnel of a business engaged in telephone marketing or telephone customer service by means of wire, oral or electronic communication to intercept such marketing or customer service communications where such interception is made for the sole purpose of training, quality control or monitoring by the business, provided that one party involved in the communications has consented to such intercept. Any communications recorded pursuant to this paragraph may only be used by the business for the purpose of training quality control. Unless otherwise required by Federal or State law, communications recorded pursuant to this paragraph shall be destroyed within one year from the date of recording.

[MPSoldier84]

It's a big law......

http://members.aol.com/StatutesP5/18.Cp.57B.html

I know the Federal Wiretapping law states you just have to be a party to the conversation. However, if I can remember my wiretapping course I took... (In the federal government they beat wiretapping to death). It includes you being in the same general area/room/etc.

[Gene L]

In the situation youo described, you have to be a "party" to the conversation. This is state law, don't know about Federal, but I think it's the same...you wire a snitch, send him in and he has a conversation with the bad guy while you record it.

Whcih means you are present, and taking part in the conversation. Or at least your presence has to be known; it's not necessary to say anything.

However, that is NOT wiretapping. Wiretapping is intercepting telephone or electronic conservation or information without the other parties' knowledge you're even there. It's done from a remot location. It requires a Superior Court order (on a local leval) and an assistant AG on the Federal level.