Is it illegal to record some one in Louisiana without them being aware of the recording?
399841
In Louisiana only one person has to be aware that the recording is being made. So, yes, it may be used in a court of law.  Sorry.\n\nThe only states where it requires two parties to be notified that a recording is being made are\n\nCalifornia\n Illinois\n Montana\n \nConnecticut\n Massachusetts\n New Hampshire\n \nDelaware\n Maryland\n Pennsylvania\n \nFlorida\n Michigan\n Washington
1079793
Although it is not announced at the start of every program, what you are actually doing is stealing intellectual property if you are using it to make money.  (Eg: during the Super Bowl you hear "Any reproduction of this program in whole or in part for commercial viewing is strictly prohibited")\n\nIf it's just for information on a blog, then a disclaimer stating where the capture came from should be enough to cover the legalities.
959920
I don't think it is a public record.  I think the only way you can get those records is to steal them or initiate a law suit and subpoena the records.
1185472
I wouldn't tell the local police, because they might ignore it to protect their own officer.  Give the video to the state police or FBI.  They can do something about the officer's misbehavior.
1076815
Ultimately the court has the discretion whether or not to admit something like this into evidence and usually in very rare circumstances.  People are not allowed to be voice recorded without their consent and if it's the main piece of evidence in the case it is likely that the court will find it inadmissible and ask that party to make it's case with other facts and evidence.
932148
if they do, someone has to inform you of them. otherwise, its illegal to tape you without notification,.
649554
If you are going to record meetings for the meetings notes, first place the recorder on the table and announce, "I'm going to record the meeting."  If ANYONE objects, turn it off.  If the boss says turn it on, then turn it on and affirm that the boss wanted it on (making it the boss's responsibility).\n\nIf you are going to do so secretly, then it absolutely, positively, undisputably has to remain secret.  If there was a murder plot and you bring it up for evidence then the defense attorney will be seeing you in court.  If there was a personal problem and you find out a coworker is sleeping with your spouse even, then you can't use it for anything but your distinct purpose--secretly.  Otherwise the other party will be talking about the extortion tool you possess.  Immediately after the notes are typed, record some music over the tape and use the same tape then again for the next meeting so you don't have a bunch of meeting notes tapes hanging around.  If you use it for ANY other purpose than you mnemonic aide, you are on really, really thin ice no matter what the local laws say.
673362
You first have to tell the person that they are being recorded.
827936
It's my understanding that you can record a conversation as long as you are one of the people talking.  My friend recorded his ex's phone calls to him and then they used that in court against her.\nIf you were recording two people and neither knew it then you couldn't use it.
1158183
If it is bad to record someone w/o their knowledge or approval that is dumb.  That means cameras in store should be removed.  Banks should go w/o them too.  \n\nIf it is just to record them bad, if it is to catch them in the act gooooooood.
835093
I wont pretend I know how it works in Texas (I'm in Australia), but generally, the rules of evidence are more relaxed in civil law cases.  It will probably be up to the sitting judge to decide whether it gets admitted, based on it how probative, reliable, etc. it is.  This evidence sounds probative AND reliable, so that's a good sign.\n\nI very much doubt it's illegal to tape record somebody without them knowing, unless you plan to publish the conversation in breach of their rights of privacy/confidentiality or something.  Laws against secretly recording stuff usually focus on what you actually do with the information, not the fact that you recorded it.  But you guys have a constitutional right to privacy so dont quote me on that.\n\nBut it might still be inadmissable in court, because of a law neither you nor me know about it, so we need to get back to the golden rule of civil litigation, which is: Dont do it unless there's absolutely no other option because its really really expensive.  Keep hounding the guy for a bit longer.  If he still doesn't pay up, talk to a lawyer and the lawyer will be able to hound him more effectively as well as telling you if your tape recorded evidence is legal and admissable.  If all else fails, you can sue.\n\nBut definitely dont start legal proceedings without legal advice.  Good luck mate
93328
I heard video surveilance without permission is legal, but not audio surveilance. More of a speculation though, since i remember reading in newspaper about woman discovering that for the past four years there was a videocamera in her bedroom, and she sued the workers that installed it there during some house repairs, but lost since there was no audio feed, and video feed was found legal (US, some state)
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.
336548
There are a whole lot of mitigating factors.\n\nGenerally speaking, it is not illegal.  Especially since it was in a meeting.\nHowever, the law does vary from state to state.\n\nWhat the biggest part of the question would be is this:\nWas the person doing the recording part of the members of the meeting?  If yes, then more then likly there is not problems.  If not, then you have evesdropping laws that come into play.\n\nAgain.. circumstances.. More details are needed...\nState, and was recording party part of meeting...
543645
A person can be taped on a phone by the other party.  As long as ONE person, meaning you or the other perosn you are talking to is doing the recording, it is legal.  For someone else outside of law enforcement to do it, it is very illegal.  (i.e neighbor, ex-boyfriend, brother, sister examples such as these are illegal)
258517
Honey, if you write it, it is no longer off the record.  That is a record.  If you have indeed interviewed the lady, you must respect her wishes regarding off the record.  (By the way, who is she?)
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.