Sandy,
That exception in CA is so that it is legal to record police and other public officials in the performance of their duties, as I understand the current interpretation.
CA has probably the most stringent requirement for two party consent of audio recording of any state. In the example you give, in CA, you may NOT record your lunch companion's voice without first recording his/her permission to record.
For shops in CA, the employee must have signed a prior consent that is on file with the employer for the recording to be legal, unless the employee falls into the narrow "public official" exemption.
BTW, MD now has pending litigation concerning the legality of recording law enforecement officers in pursuit of their duties, because MD does not currently have that exception. This is viewed as a major civil liberties case because the incident that led to it was shown by the recording to be pretty damningly racist treatment by police of a person stopped for a simple traffic violation, if memory serves me. Since the police force in the case was already under court orders due to prior admissions of racial profiling, the driver decided to record the interaction. For that, he was charged with criminal violation of MD's two party consent law. If I had to bet, I'd place a fair amount of money on the driver, either because the court will carve out an exception or because, if it doesn't, our state legislature will act to do so. Last year the Illinois high court carved out just such an exception there. The ink on the Illinois ruling was not yet dry when the state AG leapt up and reminded everyone that the ruling had NOT invalidated the rest of the Illinois "two party consent" law for audio recording.
sandyf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> walesmaven Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The question to ask the MSC rep is, "Has the
> > client certified that employees have siged a
> > consent form for audio recording?"
> >
> > Is the site that you are calling in a two party
> > state? For details about inter-state
> recording,
> > please check out [
www.rcfp.org]
> >
> > Good catch on your part.
>
> This below is an excerpt from the California law
> as stated on the rcfp website regarding recordings
> in California where it is not legal at all
> except......
> :
> "The statute, however, specifically excludes from
> its application any conversations made in public
> places, government proceedings, or in
> circumstances where the participants of the
> conversation could reasonably expect to be
> overheard or recorded."
>
>
> I interpret this to mean that if you are in a
> restaurant or retail store which is open to the
> public and people are sitting at the next table or
> standing in back of you at the register, the
> person I am talking to and might be recording (for
> my own memory aide) should have a reasonable
> expectation that the conversation will be
> overheard. I certainly have overheard many a
> conversation at the next table so I would
> reasonably expect to be overheard. What do you
> think? Not sure if other states have the same
> exclusion.
Based in MD, near DC
Shopping from the Carolinas to New York
Have video cam; will travel
Poor customer service? Don't get mad; get video.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2013 09:27PM by walesmaven.