can a person be taped without consent in NC?
543645
A person can be taped on a phone by the other party.  As long as ONE person, meaning you or the other perosn you are talking to is doing the recording, it is legal.  For someone else outside of law enforcement to do it, it is very illegal.  (i.e neighbor, ex-boyfriend, brother, sister examples such as these are illegal)
739625
First off, the police do not have to advise you that you are being recorded.  The courts have ruled that you have no expectation of privacy when talking to the police, especially in a police station, and that they police can record you with or without your knowledge or permission.\n\nSecond, in the police world "person of interest" usually  means "suspect."  "Person of interest" is just a nice way to say things.\n\nWith regards to releasing or sharing evidence, the decision to do that is based on the agency's rules and state laws.  We do not do that where I work.  The police may have done so to prove to the victim that you were NOT the person who committed the crime and totally clear your name.  It may have been a service to you!\n\nCall the agency who gave you the poly and ask them about it.  They will probably tell you why you did that.
120209
tape record him, then call the police. tape record the conversation you have with the police. tell the police you are tape recording the conversation, and play for the police the tape of the neighbor. if the police do nothing, call the ACLU and play them all the tapes you have regarding this.
563134
Breaking someone's confidential matter.
10466
It's legal for a business to record anything in the office, video or audio. With the exception of the bathroom, and even then they might be able to get away with it. \n\nIt isn't however, advisable for you to carry your own recording device into the office.
412447
The link below requires registration, but I think it might have your answer right there.  It even specified in NC.  I think you get put on probation, or stricter probation or something.
1046669
Nope-the police have to submit the information to a court. The court issues a warrant. The person is arrested.
962050
If one party in the conversation knows that they are being recorded, then yes.\n\nMeaning that if you are talking to someone on the phone and record it, it is legal.\n\nHowever, if you pick up an extension and record two other people talking and neither one knows that they are being recorded, then that's illegal.\n\nThe exception is if law enforcement is doing the recording of course, with permission of the courts.
1185472
I wouldn't tell the local police, because they might ignore it to protect their own officer.  Give the video to the state police or FBI.  They can do something about the officer's misbehavior.
193433
I think it is a federal law that the party being recorded must know that they are being recorded.\n\nOtherwise your activity is illegal
889573
Now adays many police departments require interrogations to be videotaped so that if a question like this arises and independent party can make just such a determination. In the absence of this type of evidence, there needs to be testimonial evidence about the conditions leading up to the confession, like how long had the person been deprived of sleep, food, water. etc. Also, if it is alleged to have been written by the confessor when in fact someone else wrote it and the "confessor" just signed it, a content analysis can be done to see if the language and construction used in the confession is consistent with the alleged confessor's skill level and usage.
27449
as pointed out different state different laws.. \n\nmy gut tells me that if you are taping your property.. you can do as you please.. your post doesnt say "what" you are taping these guests doing.. for whatever reason you are taping them for.. whether it be a babysitter sneaking around looking for money.. or a wild night.. i suggest that you and only you view that tape.. \n\nthere could be some legal repricussions if you distribute it... but then again.. your post doesnt really specify a purpose for taping to begin with.. so i wont go in to defamation of character and extortion laws at this time..\n\ntaping police officers?.. i think a better issue to address is why police officers feel the need to frequently visit your house.. i stand by my answer that you can tape anything you want on your property.. but trying to "catch" police officers in the act of doing something can have some bad repricussions.. if there is in fact something illegal (excessive use of force) being done at the hands of police.. i think you should discuss this matter with internal affairs before you start setting up cameras.. \n\n>>but i still dont understand why police officers are coming in your house.. i think you need to weigh in your own credibility as well... i think there is a lot more to this story that can be put on this forum..
835093
I wont pretend I know how it works in Texas (I'm in Australia), but generally, the rules of evidence are more relaxed in civil law cases.  It will probably be up to the sitting judge to decide whether it gets admitted, based on it how probative, reliable, etc. it is.  This evidence sounds probative AND reliable, so that's a good sign.\n\nI very much doubt it's illegal to tape record somebody without them knowing, unless you plan to publish the conversation in breach of their rights of privacy/confidentiality or something.  Laws against secretly recording stuff usually focus on what you actually do with the information, not the fact that you recorded it.  But you guys have a constitutional right to privacy so dont quote me on that.\n\nBut it might still be inadmissable in court, because of a law neither you nor me know about it, so we need to get back to the golden rule of civil litigation, which is: Dont do it unless there's absolutely no other option because its really really expensive.  Keep hounding the guy for a bit longer.  If he still doesn't pay up, talk to a lawyer and the lawyer will be able to hound him more effectively as well as telling you if your tape recorded evidence is legal and admissable.  If all else fails, you can sue.\n\nBut definitely dont start legal proceedings without legal advice.  Good luck mate
427998
This doesn't make much sense. The short answer is that police get away with a lot of things that are not legal.\n\nIf you're saying they forced the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim into making and accepting a charge of statutory rape, and then charged them with making a false report, what was the point?\n\nThis is why all interrogations should be recorded, preferably videotaped. One of the lawyers should be be able to get this tossed out.
997932
I don't know about specific laws in Maine, but in NC I believe the teachers can hold back a student without consent. If they want to hold your child back, it's probably for the best.
766795
I suspect that you would be trespassing if you did carry in a camera or tape recorder. There are also privacy issues.
102119
In cases where they are just in the background, incidental to what you are doing, I don't see how anyone could expect you to get their permission to tape them.  It is the intentional pointing of a camera at a subject which is important legally.\n\nRemember, too, that most of the time those incidentally included will not even be recognizable when the tape is played.  A lot of times, you won't even realize they are there until you play it back.  I don't know whether there is case law on the subject, but I can't see how anyone could successfully argue that you had violated their rights in such a case.  The right in question is generally a right to be paid for their appearance.  Clearly you cannot pay all the people in a crowd scene, and I am confident that "included by accident" subjects, even if only a few and not a crowd, fall into the same category.  \n\nHowever, I should warn you that I am not a lawyer.  If someone hassles you, it is probably worth it to offer to reshoot the scene without them.  If you are sued, you will need a lawyer.  I am merely pointing out that the law is, generally speaking, rational.  When a judge makes a ruling that seems strange, he will offer justification based on statute and case law.  The strangeness usually comes from an otherwise sensible law (or prior ruling) being applied to something unanticipated.