fine dining tip?

I read the actual Maryland law. I then read case studies. I further read "intercept" definitions, how intent plays into this, as well as public versus private.

First, no one can detain you and have you searched for recording devices, other than in government facilities (like courts) that specifically do not allow such personal devices. As long as I am not using such recordings as proof of what was said, there is no intent of harm. As long as I am in a public setting, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, I can record my surroundings legally as long as I am not using any kind of sound enhancement device (intercept). If someone is yelling out loud and ends up being recorded, that recording is not illegal. If someone is greeting you in a restaurant, in front of other guests and staff, that conversation is not private. As long as I do not offer to use that recording to prove my report is correct then I have not violated intent laws.

Intent and usage are the key, in addition to how and where the audio was captured.

My posts are solely based on my opinions and for my entertainment, contact a professional if you need real advice.

When you get in debt you become a slave. - Andrew Jackson

Create an Account or Log In

Membership is free. Simply choose your username, type in your email address, and choose a password. You immediately get full access to the forum.

More About Fine Dining

Yup, this is a perfect example why everyone who considers doing this needs to become an expert in the relevant laws.

Happily shopping Rhode Island and nearby Massachusetts and Connecticut

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have arrivev at a very different conclusion. So we can agree to disagree.

Shopping Southeast Pennsylvania, Delaware above the canal, and South Jersey since 2008

@myst4au wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have arrivev at a very different conclusion. So we can agree to disagree.

I agree. FWIW people have been arrested for something an Officer thought was wrong, even when it wasn't. Five different judges could come to five different findings for the same case.

My posts are solely based on my opinions and for my entertainment, contact a professional if you need real advice.

When you get in debt you become a slave. - Andrew Jackson

Personally, I can't afford the legal fees to prove them wrong though.

There are reasons that a body stays in motion
At the moment only demons come to mind

@isaiah58 wrote:

Several months ago I witnessed the police response at a local restaurant. A person got upset and grabbed another person's phone. They claimed invasion of privacy. The police clearly explained it was a public area, the person that grabbed the phone was in the wrong, and they returned the phone to it's owner. They almost arrested the person that incorrectly interpreted the law.

Could you explain what happened in the above quote further? I am not sure what happened there. Who was pressing charges and who were they pressed against...was someone on a phone call, or recording? and a stranger came over and grabbed the phone and said they were being recorded? thanks for the clarification of what the police said was not illegal.

I arrived about the same time the police did. A patron (#1) of the coffee/food restaurant apparently had a small dog and another patron (#2) said something to them. #1 took offense so #2 used their phone to document the exchange of words that started to happen. #1 somehow snatched the phone away. I am not sure whom summoned the police. #1 tried to defend their actions saying they did not consent to being recorded, along with stating their reason why #2 should mind their own business. The police did a good job, calmed #1 down, while #2 was mostly quiet and patient. The police said a few things too #1 including that they were in a public place so their privacy was not being invaded, that #1 was wrong about their interpretation of the laws.

From what I could figure out, #2 almost tripped over the leash. It was not a service dog, just a small poodle. The dog itself was reserved.

Let me ask you this. Your sitting in a restaurant and some drunk guest starts to insult and threaten you, and your companion. If you recorded the exchange could a court really say your recording is not admissible because the other party did not consent?

My posts are solely based on my opinions and for my entertainment, contact a professional if you need real advice.

When you get in debt you become a slave. - Andrew Jackson

If I have to check whether what I am doing is legal or not, I would not accept any fine dining shops. Looks like I managed a lot of them by just using my dependable watch and my memory. As a matter of fact, when I was a rookie, I was doing mostly fine dining because I woke up too late to consider it a business.

If you are just recording yourself it is not illegal.

Isiah 58, thanks for the clarification on the recording incident you watched. I do not live in Maryland so what the police there said would not apply to me but this sounds like not just a recording but threats were thrown about as well and the recording was not at all being made out of someones pocket quietly. To answer your question about what I would do, I suppose I would rely on the other patrons of the restaurant and staff if I were the one being accused and I felt I did nothing wrong. But, in my state I am pretty sure a dog of any size would not be in a restaurant if they were not a service dog so it is a moot point. I cannot imagine that the restaurant staff would not intervene to rid the restaurant of the insulting and threatening guest or at least get that person to stop that behavior. I personally would not sue someone for throwing words at me so if the drunk was thrown out of the restaurant that would be the end of it for me.

I do not believe anyone will frisk me to see if I have a recorder. I bring the recorder home miles from where it was recorded and I listen to it. My senior moments disappear as I relive the moments describing the players their acts and omissions. I never touch my voice recorder or give it any attention once it goes in my pocket out in the car. I have NEVER been questioned by an editor when I give fantastic narrations based on my recordings. I have every detail. The client NEVER asks for the recording (execpt if you are doing a Storage shop, they give you a program to upload the recording.) It does not matter that you have a recording if the manager wants to contradict reality and save his or her butt. It should be logical that you are not biased, you are just reporting, The client would rather believe the manager that was caught with their pants down but said their pants were properly worn would never lie.

PHD - You are of course entitled to assume whatever risk you choose. You apparently choose to make audio recordings in a dual-consent state, which is a felony. I chose not to do that. While the chance of being "caught" is low, the consequence of being caught and charged with a felony is very high. We will need to agree to disagree, but everyone needs to understand the risks that they are assuming, whether it is making an illegal recording or venturing into a more dangerous part of a town.

Shopping Southeast Pennsylvania, Delaware above the canal, and South Jersey since 2008

All legal writings are OPINIONS. That is why they are called OPINIONS OF THE COURT. The attorneys argue whose opinion is correct in front of a judge and back it up by citing previous rulings and interpretations. The judge then decides which attorney's opinion makes more sense or gives his or her own. In the supreme court, the majority writes the OPINION and the minority writes their own OPINION. It is all OPINION. When many opinions from many lawsuits and judges all match, the law becomes established precedent. BUT precedent can and is changed all the time. Interpretations of laws and situations evolve as society changes. Things that were "obviously" wrong 30 years ago are now reinterpreted. The opinions on recordings are changing. For example, on March 20, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court released decisions in People v. Melongo and People v. Clark, saying recording conversations is a right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If people want to keep insisting that recording in public is a crime, the court will grant your wish. Is that what you really want? A society where out of control police can harass and harangue citizens and its a crime to record them?

The police are starting to wear body cameras all over the country. This is to protect the police force from frivolous charges and to stop bad police from doing things that can cost the city, county, or state millions of dollars in court losses.

If you are in a two party state, just record the video without audio for timings and descriptions. No laws are broken. The laws are changing quickly in several states and the websites that have the laws stated are not always updated to the latest interpretation by a judge.

Unless they can pass a law that exempts law enforcement, the body cameras will be thrown out of court, or the 30 year old telephone wiretap laws that are the weak basis of this two party state wiretap of the phone that are being used to stop video recording will be will be rescinded one jurisdiction at a time.

The bad police officers are learning that they can't do anything in public without it being captured on a cell phone or a security camera. This is good for all and keeps them on the straight and narrow.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

fine dining tip?

Create an Account or Log In

Official List of Mystery Shopping Companies

Mystery Shopper Magazine