Tape recording conversations came up in a hearing last week in Versailles. That had been the first for a very long time. As we have seen in the past few years with Alec Baldwin and David Hasslehoff, technology has changed so much that everyone has a video camera and a tape recorder in their cell phones. I offer this bit of my research using Google. The Citizen Media Law Project's has a page for Indiana on its website which has the virtue of links to Indiana's statutes:
Indiana Recording Law | Citizen Media Law Project: "Indiana's wiretapping law is a 'one-party consent' law. Indiana makes it a crime to record a telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. See Ind. Code § 35-33.5-1-5 and Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5. Therefore, you may record a telephone conversation if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation. That said, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties. In-person conversations do not appear to be covered by the law, but it cannot hurt to get consent before recording just in case.: "Indiana's wiretapping law is a 'one-party consent' law. Indiana makes it a crime to record a telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. See Ind. Code § 35-33.5-1-5 and Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5. Therefore, you may record a telephone conversation if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation. That said, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties. In-person conversations do not appear to be covered by the law, but it cannot hurt to get consent before recording just in case.
In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the Indiana wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-4."
I will say three things unmentioned above. First, if you expect them to fall over themselves about the difference between the conversation and their testimony - don't. They will just say that they changed their minds. Second, remember there are two parties to a conversation - I do not think my opposing counsel has yet caught on about what my client said put a big hole in his case. Third, that there is an evidentiary foundation that must be laid before the recording goes in as evidence.
Posts
3 comments:
The Indiana Parenting Time Guidlines say
"Commentary
Parents should agree on a specified time for telephone calls so that a child will be available to receive the call. The parent initiating the call should bear the expense of the call. A child may, of course, call either parent, though at reasonable hours, frequencies, and at the cost of the parent called if it is a long distance call.
Examples of unacceptable interference with communication include a parent refusing to answer a phone or refusing to allow the child or others to answer; a parent recording phone conversations between the other parent and the child; turning off the phone or using a call blocking mechanism or otherwise denying the other parent telephone contact with the child."
Which I have always assumed was the law. However I have taken up reading the laws and trying to understand them more. With that I have found this.
"3. Purpose of Commentary Following Rule. Throughout these Guidelines many of the rules are followed by a commentary further explaining the rule or setting forth the child centered philosophy behind the rule. The commentary is not an enforceable rule but provides guidance in applying the rule."
Showing that this is not a law at all. With the Indiana law being where at least one person has to know that they are being recorded. A parent can consent for thier child. I was able to use my recorded telephone conversations in my divorce. My attorney at the time advised me it was against the law to record my child and her father. Even though the communication was harmful.
I am a bit unclear what you say is not the law. If you mean the Parenting Time Guideline is not law because of what the commentary says, then you are confusing what a Commentary is with the Rule.
I understand that the Indiana Parenting Time Guideline is a law. However what I did not know was the things listed under commentary were not part of the law. That those were for guidance purposes and not enforceable.
I always presumed that the Indiana Law was that you could not record a telephone conversation between you child and the non-custodial parent. Because in the commentary of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines it states
"Examples of unacceptable interference with communication include"
However after looking into it future I realized that is not a law. But a recommendation of the Domestic Relations Committee. Then it also states in the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines that
"The commentary is not an enforceable rule but provides guidance in applying the rule"
Showing that this is not a law in it's self but a tool of guidance. Making it legal to record the telephone conversation between your child and the non-custodial parent. However I would only try to use it if I felt that it showed good cause to prove that the communication is harmful to my child.
Post a Comment