What does "Oklahoma sheriff says recording of killing talk was illegal" mean in practical terms?

Question

SOURCE:

"Oklahoma sheriff says recording of killing talk was illegal": https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oklahoma-sheriff-recording-killing-talk-illegal-98665814

CONTEXT:

An Oklahoma sheriff’s office says a newspaper's audio recording in which the sheriff and others are reportedly heard discussing killing two journalists and hanging Black people was illegal and predicted felony charges will be filed.

Bruce Willingham, the longtime publisher of the McCurtain Gazette-News, said the recording was made March 6 when he left a voice-activated recorder inside the room after a county commissioner’s meeting because he suspected the group was continuing to conduct county business after the meeting had ended in violation of the state’s Open Meeting Act.

Willingham said he twice spoke with his attorneys to be sure he was doing nothing illegal.

QUESTIONS:

Assume that the Oklahoma sheriff's claim is correct. What limitations are then imposed on the recording: Does this mean that the recording can not be used as evidence? Is the recorded somehow "gagged" / precluded from being shared on social media or other context?

Why would it be illegal to record the conversation given that the conversation was recorded in a public meeting room?

Answer 1

If the recording was obtained legally, it can be admissible as evidence, but not if it is the fruit of the poisonous tree. Whether or not the recording is legal depends in part on whether the parties has a reasonable expectation of privacy, under the circumstances. This is encoded in the definition of "oral communication", as

any communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstance justifying such expectation

21 Okl.St.Ann. § 1202 is relevant, stating that

Every person guilty of secretly loitering about any building, with intent to overhear discourse therein, and to repeat or publish the same to vex, annoy, or injure others, is guilty of a misdemeanor

It is not relevant who owns the room or what it is typically used for, what would matter would be if, given the facts of the conversation, one can reasonably expect that the conversation will not be heard by others. For example, if the room was empty save for the parties, it is reasonable to expect that the conversation cannot be heard. If the parties are inside the room shouting at each other and the walls are thin, it could be unreasonable to expect that the conversation will not be heard. This depends on the facts – "in public" does not mean "in a governmentally-owned building".

By way of historical background, the reason why these laws are called "wiretapping" laws is that the government used to tap conversations and secretly record criminals plotting their crimes. Congress put a stop to that, and every state did likewise. Congress did not create an exception like "unless it turns out that the recording can be used as evidence for a criminal prosecution".