14

The video is a record created and possessed by the government, documenting government activities. It is a government record, and probably a public record under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. As such, you would almost certainly be unable to force its destruction, and it's more likely that the public would be able to access it.


6

The law 'doesn't care' how the call is recorded. What matters is whether or not you should inform / should have informed the participant(s) in the circumstances. In circumstances where you are acting as an ordinary member of the public, in the course of a purely personal or household activity, not in a journalistic capacity, regulated business or other ...


5

Generally, if someone asks you to leave their property you have to leave*. Just because a place is owned by the public, doesn't mean anyone can go there any time they wish. Military bases, firehouses, and jails are owned by the public, but many of these have limited access to the public. It may be open to the general public, but that does not mean ...


5

You asked the rep about how to change some details on your account, and asked him about the cost. It is clear from the recording that you are not changing anything right now. I can't see anything where you state that you want to enter a contract right now, I can not see anything where the rep indicates they want to enter a contract right now. In other words, ...


4

The district court judge, as reported in this news story has held that there was probable cause to arrest Daniel Robbins in this case, and that his rights were not violated. If this ruling stands, officers acted legally, although they might still be required to return the phone with the images. Whether there is probable cause for an arrest (or a search) is ...


4

Very interesting legal question. Had it been in a public place, you both would have had right to film anything you pleased. Different deal in the privacy of your home. There, you have the right to record because it's your domicile, even without notice to the officer (e.g. nanny-cams). However the officer as a private party does not automatically have ...


4

There are several misunderstandings here. First of all, the US exclusionary rule applies only to evidence gained by the police, or by people acting as agents of the government, and not always to them. Secondly it applies only in criminal cases. The question does not say which state this would be in, and these are largely matters of state law, so it makes a ...


3

someone I spoke with said "there is to be no recording of this or any other calls". Must I follow this instruction? Although, in Canada, there is no requirement on you to obtain consent to make recording, this explicit objection creates a hurdle. If you simply ignore the objection and record the conversation anyway without letting the objecting party know, ...


3

The answer is, "No, it will not default to the state where the recording device is located." Whether your recording is legal or not may depend on where the device is located, but it may depend on other things as well. For example, to sue under Florida law, "the persons bringing suit must be Florida residents or the improper "interception" must have occurred ...


2

Did Avi Yemini illegally record “Jim Jefferies” by using a hidden mobile phone? No. One- and two-party consent rules are about confidentiality of a conversation rather than an issue of whether either party gets to monopolize the recording(s) of their conversation. In this case, the conversation took place with both parties' awareness that the conversation ...


2

The court doesn't matter The location of the court that will hear the matter is irrelevant. What matters is the applicable law. Since the matter was transferred to Florida, I assume that Florida law is applicable. Was the recording unlawful? What matters is where the parties were when the recording was made. If you recorded a person in Florida without ...


2

Yes, but yours isn't one of those For the basics of a contract see What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid? Technically, a contract exists independently of its documentation - just like the black eye is evidence of the assault rather than the assault itself, the contract documentation is evidence of the contract, not the contract. ...


2

One approach is to direct their attention to this publication from the NY Dept. of Health. It says "Physicians and hospitals are required by state law to maintain patient records for at least six years from the date of the patient's last visit". There is also a PDF printout which you can hand to them. If they still absolutely refuse, the publication explains ...


1

The prohibition applies to any "private communication". That term is defined here, as any oral communication, or any telecommunication, that is made by an originator who is in Canada or is intended by the originator to be received by a person who is in Canada and that is made under circumstances in which it is reasonable for the originator to expect ...


1

It is illegal in Canada to wilfully intercept a private communication "Intercept" means: listen to; record; acquire or acquire the substance, meaning or purport of the communication. In plain words, you are not permitted to surreptitiously listen to someone else's conversation, let alone record it. In fact, it is illegal in Canada to possess surreptitious ...


1

Does this amount to blanket consent? Not exactly. Instead, the policy precludes the prohibition in section 632 of the California Penal Code. The exact terms of the policy might bring up (or entail) a subtlety, but I'm answering based on the information you provide. The California statute prohibits the recording of confidential communication [without the ...


1

Background From the Iowa Municipal Code: Sec. 70-39. - Loitering near government buildings. (a) No person shall congregate, stand, loaf or loiter in or in front of or around any school or other public building occupied in whole or in part by any governmental subdivision, including any agency, body, department, office, board or commission and the like ...


1

Daniel’s link pretty much covers it, but I’d like to add the following : If the filming happens in public space ("espace public"), there should be no reason to ban you from filming. Conversely, if the filming happens in a restricted/security area (i.e. military facility, nuclear power plant, etc.), it’s most probably illegal (and probably visibly displayed)....


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible