Always watch what you do and say....

Kind of beating a dead horse at this point.I'm down to 20 minutes until launch anyway.

Neither party in the recording knew they were being recorded, and the conversation was happening in a private place on private (not the Camaro owners) property.

This may work for the government in the case of public or national security, but in this case I don't think it would hold in court.

It's like saying that I can legally let you borrow a phone thats bugged and if I catch you doing something illegal, the phone was my property, and therefore I had every right to bug the phone.

Won't happen.

PHeller wrote: Neither party in the recording knew they were being recorded, and the conversation was happening in a private place on private (not the Camaro owners) property.

It doesn't matter if it's private property. As I said, if you're standing in your yard, or your driveway, or the parking lot of a car dealership, and I can observe you from a public street, there is no expectation of privacy. And if I have sufficient technology to do so, I can record what you say as well as video tape you.

If you're hooning around in a parking lot, it doesn't matter if it's private property, public property or the surface of the Moon. You don't have any reasonable expectation that no one can see or hear what you're doing. Okay, maybe the surface of the Moon, but only if you're on the dark side.

And the consent issue is contingent on the reasonable expectation of privacy.

How do we know it was a parking lot? How do we know it wasn't inside the shop?

In reply to PHeller:

You ever do 100 inside a shop? Public road = no reasonable expectation of privacy in any court case I've been able to find.

I meant that he could have been hooning on a private track and the conversation could have happened inside the shop.

Or he could have been hooning in a huge building and having the conversation with a police officer. I dunno, nobody on the video said who they were.

I think it does matter if it was on private property. You can't bug people. You can have an "enhanced ear" but you can't bug people.

Again, thats like saying I can bug you as long as I can see you from 1000 yards away while your talking.

PHeller wrote: I think it does matter if it was on private property.

I can't put a bug in your house, but if you're in your yard, I can record you. I can walk right up to you and ask you questions until you tell me to get off your property. Even then, I can walk out to the street and continue to record you.

The private property thing isn't the issue. The only case for the guys in the car would be to argue that they had an expectation of privacy inside someone else's car. Maybe so. But if they wanted to peruse it legally, they would have to introduce the recording into evidence. That would very likely bolster the counter-suit claiming that they abused the guys car.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: The private property thing isn't the issue. The only case for the guys in the car would be to argue that they had an expectation of privacy inside someone else's car. Maybe so. But if they wanted to peruse it legally, *they* would have to introduce the recording into evidence. That would very likely bolster the counter-suit claiming that they abused the guys car.

Bingo. Off to bed. Goodnight.

Ok. One more before I hit it. Here is a recap of what I said on page one. It's being ignored and it is straight from the law books. Yes, I cut out what was unnecessary for the conversation:

(2) "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication. (3) "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

SECTION 17-30-20. Prohibited acts. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, a person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be punished as provided in Section 17-30-50 of this chapter: (1) intentionally intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

Read over and over and over, understand, and think about how a state supreme court would handle it.

"Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.

I think the relevant part is 'exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation'. The guys in the recording probably never considered even for a moment that they might be recorded. Now, did they have circumstances justifying that expectation? I'm going to say no. The reason I say that is because I can see a video camera mounted above the service drive, there's more in the shop etc and that's typical for dealerships nowadays. That means you never know just when the boss might be looking.

If the hoonage took place on a public road, then the police are constantly patrolling. That means they could quite possibly be observed performing such hoonage; there is no privacy on the public roads. There are video cameras for that purpose as well.

The owner of the car planted the bug. It's his car, he can do anything he wants with it. Were he to have videotaped the hoonage himself, there wouldn't even be an argument here. The difference is the bug was INSIDE the car. Now,if the car does not belong to him and he does so without the owner's permission, he's got a problem.

Curmudgeon wrote: If the hoonage took place on a public road, then the police are constantly patrolling. That means they could quite possibly be observed performing such hoonage; there is no privacy on the public roads.

I've changed my mind. If they did it on my street at night, they had every expectation that there would not be a police officer anywhere nearby. However, I suppose I would argue that they were very likely to run into thieves looking to break into a car.

N Sperlo wrote: ...think about how a state supreme court would handle it.

Well that's easy! In a random and capricious manner, with a good measure of smug self-righteousness, and bolstered by a rambling statement of their distorted view of the rule of law.

This is an interesting subject to me, since I'm both 1) one of those gawdawful attorney types and 2) really, really interested in infringement on privacy. A couple of quick observations:

1) As several people have already pointed out., each state gets to make its own rules about this stuff, although the general trend as of the last twenty years or so is that if it's a close case, most of the time you don't have an expectation of privacy.

2) Courts generally recognize that people in an automobile have some enhanced expectation of privacy over people on the street or out in public on foot. If this had been the tech's car, then the owner is SOL. BUT: Since it's his own car, and the techs were invitees, then I would guess it would be admissible.

3) Some of you guys are missing the forest for the trees. I have at least three or four people a week who come see me to ask about their legal recourse in situations where they could get probably get satisfaction or compensation informally if they'd give it a shot. Regardless of whether the recording is admissible in court, it's certainly something the service manager is going to be interested in hearing. Now if he fires the techs, and they go to the labor board, then who knows. Employment law is another thing that varies hugely state to state, and the recording might or might not be admissible.

BTW, apparently the video (or that link to it) is only viewable by invitation now?