threats over cellphones can it be used in the court of law?
97166
Ofcourse yes. I presume all these are covered under the cyber law that vary from country to country.
509029
The threats are disturbing.  Consult the police and be very very careful.  People like that carry out their threats.
723025
You can right now, but I'm not using it and I won't. I don't want people to see the stupid stuff I do while I talk on the phone.
927049
As far as I can think, there is no pro for cell phone during school.  Having them and turning them on are two different categories.\n\nI have no problem with carrying them, but most kids can't follow rules, due to the mind set that rules don't apply to them because they were made without their consent??!!\n\nCons:The usual, talking/texting during class, passing information or texting qnswers during test/quizzes. \n\nIf the kids would just be trustworthy, and not try to get around rules or try  to outsmart others, they would be surprised how much less rules there would have to be.  But as long as there are rule busters, there will be rule makers.
774967
I can't speak to cell phone bans, but I do know that there are laws on the books in many states that specifically exempt on-duty police officers from two-way radio and communicator bans.  Maybe there are similar ones in "hands free" areas that exempt them as well.\n\nKeep in mind, that they _usually_ are communicating with other officers (though that surely isn't always the case).
827936
It's my understanding that you can record a conversation as long as you are one of the people talking.  My friend recorded his ex's phone calls to him and then they used that in court against her.\nIf you were recording two people and neither knew it then you couldn't use it.
316738
Given my understanding of this question, the basic answer to this question is no, in either civil or common law systems.\n\nObviously, a statute or code cannot cover all sorts of conduct, including future conduct that are not anticipated by a statute or code (i.e. internet regulation).  Here, a court may be used to interpret conduct that is not regulated by some statute or code and give an opinion on the issue at hand.  That opinion, under either common law or civil law, is given "force of law," or precedential value, in which lower courts are under an obligation to follow.
781379
It should not be over the phone, at least not to a private citizen.  It may be given orally to your attorney, but then followed up in writing.\n\nThe problem with using a telephone for confidential information is obvious enough.  Were you clear on the fact that such information is confidential, at least until disclosed in open court?
948130
Extremely unlikely.\nLaw LOVE to acquit home owners defending their house.\nSelf defender in his own house is the darling of the law.\nThis is called the Castle Doctrine.[1] \nBasically most jurisdictions will not require you to flee your own house. If you see a trespasser IN YOUR OWN HOUSE it is usually enough reason to reasonably feel threatened for your life, and thus use deadly force without trying to flee first(which would be required if you were not in your house)\n\nCheck if you live in of these staes:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#U.S._States_with_Castle_Doctrine_Laws_in_Effect\nor in UK\n\nAlso if you don't, it will still be very hard to get the jury  to convict.
401883
Payphone I don't know about, for sure.  But a home phone yes.  My sister called a few times here a while back about a problem she was having and asking to talk to certain officers because we know some cops and she didnt want talk to just anyone but they sent someone over anyway and she didnt tell them where she was caling from.
973451
Wire tap laws vary from state and whether they can be used in court varies from state to state. Mostly though, if its your phone and you know you are taping the conversation it is legal. It may  or may not be used in court depending on the state law. I firmly believe in taping other people. Its the only way you can get some people to tell the truth or hold them accountable for something they said.
728927
Probably the most common criminal charge for making verbal threats would be harassment. It could how ever esculate to assault. Most of these laws are different in each state and very by what crime was committed.\n\nIf you are making them, STOP.  If you are recieving them, start documenting them (who, when, what, where, why, how).  This provides officials with the tools they will need to get it to stop.
661309
No law on pay phones except that if there is a payphone it must be able to dial an emergency number for free. If you are in a public building, the owners (or employees) must let you use a phone in an emergency situation.
1075603
You cannot record another person's telephone call without their knowledge; period, ever.  You can record your call to someone else, or their call to you; but, never, never can you record a call between two other people.  That is a criminal offense.\n   You cannot take someone else's mail either.  That and the above crime are both federal offenses, punishable by prison and hefty fines.  If you have proof, you may also be able to bring a civil suit for monetary damages.
18784
Lots of phones have build in caller i.d. now-a-days.  I'd say yes, that most offices have that service.  HOWEVER, lots of chains and other businesses aren't allowed to use it for callback purposes.  Daycares, government offices and womens shelters, for example!
886530
Yes, and they are not on their own. There are over 2 million people in Britain who have their phones tapped and everyone has their e-mail intercepted. \nDon't think for one minute this has anything to do with the destruction of the twin towers, phones have been tapped for decades it is one of the penalties of living in a former colonial power but the sad point is those who govern us still think we are. \n\nIt is costing us billions but never mind don't worry about it go out and get drunk or play bingo and maybe the grey suited nit wits will one day go away and leave us all in peace.
846177
An actual threat to do you harm is illegal.  However, an implied threat would be tricky to prosecute.  If I said "I want to beat you up" is not the same as "I am going to beat you up". . . I am sure he sounded threatening, but perhaps (though wrongly) he was expressing what he'd like to do, and did not state that he was going to do it. . simply because I find it difficult to believe that some one would say "I'm going to kick your *butt*" without a clause and not do it.  Like. . "I'm going to kick your butt if you ever do that again or put anything on my car again".\n\nI would not warn anyone if I was serious about doing harm to them, as they would know by my actions, not a warning or a "threat". . like "My fist is going to hit you once I am done telling you this". . see, that just does not make sense.\n\nBest thing to do in a situation like you were in, is,  WALK AWAY and tell your boss.   People tend to be protective about their property and you did place a warning on his vehicle . . . which was probably not enforceable. . . or your place, and he handled the situation in a bad way (being uncivil).