united-states rules-of-evidence
Does Evidence Have to be Legal in Both the State Where it is Created and Where It is Adjudicated?
<p>Suppose Suzie in Alabama calls Bonnie in Arizona, and records the call without telling Bonnie. Alabama and Arizona are both one-party consent states, so this recording is legal.</p>

<p>Suppose that for some reason, this phone recording becomes a critical piece of evidence in a case that is being heard in California. California is a two-party consent state, so it would have been illegal to make the recording there. But since the recording wasn't made in California, would the California court allow it to be used?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>since the recording wasn't made in California, would the California court allow it to be used?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes because the recording was <em>obtained</em> lawfully. The rule of one- or two- party consent primarily regulates the act of <em>obtaining</em> the evidence (i.e., recording the conversation), and the lawfulness of that act determines whether <em>using</em> that as evidence is permissible.</p>

<p><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&amp;sectionNum=632" rel="noreferrer">Section 632(c) of the California Penal Code</a> excludes from the definition of <em>confidential communication</em> "<em>any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded</em>". When Bonnie took part in the phone conversation with Suzie, Bonnie knew or should have known it was in a jurisdiction where one-party consent applies. Accordingly, Bonnie could <em>reasonably expect that the communication may be recorded</em>, thereby preempting the effect(s) of section 632.</p>
