In a custody battle can conversations that were recorded without my knowledge be used against me?
403101
Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)\n\nTwelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.\n\nRegardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.
821029
I would NOT recommend surreptitious vocal recordings in a place where privacy is expected. There are Federal and Massachusetts laws against that.
724341
Can't answer the microphone question, but you may want to just check and make sure it's legal in your area to record someone without their knowledge. In many states, it's a felony.
145997
No. You must inform them that they are being recorded. (Unless your name is Bush)
339690
It all depends on the situation, and I can respect your decision not to reveal it to the Internet. Nobody will be able to tell you anything with what you are saying. Kind of a catch 22 isn't it. I am tied in with the courts where I live, and I wouldn't give you any advise because that is your choice to make, but I might be able to give you some comparisons, if you will tell me what is going on. So you can Email me if you want to, my Email is on my page.
805390
Not in Canada.  They must warn you at least like it could be video taped.  But if they said nothing then they are invading someone's privacy.
739625
First off, the police do not have to advise you that you are being recorded.  The courts have ruled that you have no expectation of privacy when talking to the police, especially in a police station, and that they police can record you with or without your knowledge or permission.\n\nSecond, in the police world "person of interest" usually  means "suspect."  "Person of interest" is just a nice way to say things.\n\nWith regards to releasing or sharing evidence, the decision to do that is based on the agency's rules and state laws.  We do not do that where I work.  The police may have done so to prove to the victim that you were NOT the person who committed the crime and totally clear your name.  It may have been a service to you!\n\nCall the agency who gave you the poly and ask them about it.  They will probably tell you why you did that.
669041
When you say "child", if you mean a minor, then no. If you mean your adult daughter, then perhaps. After being advised of her Miranda rights ("You have the right to remain silent, if you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney and to have an attorney present during any questioning ...") There are variations to Miranda, but they all basically say, "If you tell the police you did it after being warned not to, then too bad."\nOn the other hand, if your daughter is mentally disabled, and provably so, and has been or can be diagnosed with a disorder that would have made it impossible for her to understand her rights, then you may have a case.\nShort answer, get a lawyer. Longer answer, "Get a lawyer now."
747375
I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as the final word.  If the court has ordered a parenting plan and someone else interferes, I would think they could be issued a restraining order, or at least an official warning that they are interfering with a matter that the court has already decided.  Otherwise you might have rights by arguing that they are interfering with parental authority in the case of a minor child.
472026
That's so frustrating. Not to mention unfair. But that's the way things happen. You could fight it. Was anyone taping it? You could file a grievance or some kind of formal protest making them to look at the tape and determine whether the person giving the words wasn't clear. \n\nIf nothing's done about it. Chalk it up to a hard knock in your experiences and move on. It's not worth your negative energy. YOU know you did your best.
102119
In cases where they are just in the background, incidental to what you are doing, I don't see how anyone could expect you to get their permission to tape them.  It is the intentional pointing of a camera at a subject which is important legally.\n\nRemember, too, that most of the time those incidentally included will not even be recognizable when the tape is played.  A lot of times, you won't even realize they are there until you play it back.  I don't know whether there is case law on the subject, but I can't see how anyone could successfully argue that you had violated their rights in such a case.  The right in question is generally a right to be paid for their appearance.  Clearly you cannot pay all the people in a crowd scene, and I am confident that "included by accident" subjects, even if only a few and not a crowd, fall into the same category.  \n\nHowever, I should warn you that I am not a lawyer.  If someone hassles you, it is probably worth it to offer to reshoot the scene without them.  If you are sued, you will need a lawyer.  I am merely pointing out that the law is, generally speaking, rational.  When a judge makes a ruling that seems strange, he will offer justification based on statute and case law.  The strangeness usually comes from an otherwise sensible law (or prior ruling) being applied to something unanticipated.
487992
from my experience, he is in contempt of court by not following the judges orders.  this is pretty devious but it was done to me and it worked wonders...have an order of protection put on him and request custody of your daughter.  order of protection are much more than a restraining order.  police action will be taken anytime you request.  of course all you have to do is tell your lawyer or just go to the special victims unit and that you feel your life is in danger or has been threatened.  he will be screwed.  it still haunts me.  police used to call my cell phone and ask we i was at the moment.  all because she said i drove by the house.  none of what she told the police was true, and it didn't matter.  that order of protection sucks.  anytime he violates it, automatic 10 days in jail.  its dirty but its one way to stick it to him.  good luck.  oh, and there was no investigation to see if she was even telling the truth.  they just issued it and enforced it.
24876
If he has done something other than as outlined in the agreement, he has violated it. There aren't really laws that cover custody in general, aside from the major things like a biological parent has automatic custody. Instead, your agreement should contain everything. If he goes against it, contact your local police department (not 911) and tell them that your ex is violating your custody agreement.
696651
Wireless providers do not keep transcripts or recordings of phone calls placed or received by their customers.\n\nThe closest you are going to come to proving your suspicions is by questioning your ex, or the party she was talking to, while they are under oath.
327649
I come from a law background and I can tell you that if they have said personal things about you for example slander then yes. If its just hear say then no. If you have written proof that, that person has done or said it then you have a case. The only problem then is proving that, person actually written it about you. But that shouldn't be a problem.\n\nAll I can suggest is taking legal advice as they will be able to go into greater detail and explain what you can and can't do.
1006533
Yes, but any party that is recording audio of any conversation has to inform the other that they are being recorded.  You don't have to agree to be recorded but unfortunately the company can discipline as they see fit.
1121690
I doubt that incident will make a judge decide to give you custody.\nIt helps your case that he didn't see her. I doubt he'll even go to jail, but I don't have the details I need to make that decision. You are right not to expect too much. The DA will make a decision as to whether this matter will be brought to court. It sounds like you kept your part of the order when you sent your daughter to visit him. Did you know that your son would not be allowed? Did you send your son knowing that your x would not allow that? I am not trying to be dispectful, but am trying to point out possiblies. If you can afford it, hire an attorney to help  you with the matter.