Comments
HomeOwner wrote:
Thank you for providing this information! Can you clarify, "...exceptions ... for residences monitored for security purposes unless the monitoring is conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose..."?
I am trying to understand if this holds true for me to be able to do so while other people are going through my home during an openhouse as I attempt to sell it?
I here people tell me that in this instance a posted, visible, sign notifying people that there is monitoring is required; however, in reading above, it simply says "exception for residences monitored for security".
I am trying to understand if this holds true for me to be able to do so while other people are going through my home during an openhouse as I attempt to sell it?
I here people tell me that in this instance a posted, visible, sign notifying people that there is monitoring is required; however, in reading above, it simply says "exception for residences monitored for security".
28/05 23:15:21
refadmin wrote:
I interpret the law to mean that your actions would not make you culpable. Your recording would take place during an "open house" in which your house is open to the public. The law defines that a place to which the public also has access is not a private place. Your guests then would not be in a "private place" in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Furthermore, you would likely qualify for the exception for "monitoring".
Under 750.539d(2) security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose is allowed.
These laws do not imply that a sign would be required.
Under 750.539d(2) security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose is allowed.
These laws do not imply that a sign would be required.
29/05 13:05:37
BtyHtr wrote:
So just to reiterate: Is it illegal to wear a hidden camera and record voice conversations in Michigan - lets say for instance in a department store (at the service desk)?
Another attorney told me that it was fine as long as you were a party to the conversation - as far as voice recordings go.
But wow, this is a real shocker and I'm greatful you addressed the issue.
From the looks of it, 20/20 would really have a tough time making an undercover show in our state.
Another attorney told me that it was fine as long as you were a party to the conversation - as far as voice recordings go.
But wow, this is a real shocker and I'm greatful you addressed the issue.
From the looks of it, 20/20 would really have a tough time making an undercover show in our state.
13/07 13:32:35
refadmin wrote:
MCL 750.539c applies to eavesdropping upon private conversation. MCL 539c provides that any person who is present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
MCL 750.539d providing that no person person shall use any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place, applies also to private places.
Conversations in a department store at the service desk are not private conversations in a private place. A reasonable interpretation of the law is that a person would be able to record both via voice and video, a conversation in a department store at the service desk.
MCL 750.539d providing that no person person shall use any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place, applies also to private places.
Conversations in a department store at the service desk are not private conversations in a private place. A reasonable interpretation of the law is that a person would be able to record both via voice and video, a conversation in a department store at the service desk.
14/07 18:37:46
BtyHtr wrote:
Okay, I see now.
But one question still comes to mind. You know how everybody is using speakerphones in today's world?
What about when there's someone present and listening to the speaker other end that you don't know about?
Felony Eavesdropping?
Although I'm sure it would be hard to prove, isn't it technically illegal?
But one question still comes to mind. You know how everybody is using speakerphones in today's world?
What about when there's someone present and listening to the speaker other end that you don't know about?
Felony Eavesdropping?
Although I'm sure it would be hard to prove, isn't it technically illegal?
21/07 12:45:59
refadmin wrote:
The exact language of MCL 750.539c provides: "Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both."
Arguably then, a person who is listening in on a speaker phone is a person who is present using a speaker phone to eavesdrop without the consent of all parties thereto. In my view, yes, it would be technically illegal.
Arguably then, a person who is listening in on a speaker phone is a person who is present using a speaker phone to eavesdrop without the consent of all parties thereto. In my view, yes, it would be technically illegal.
21/07 15:31:50
bothered employee wrote:
I have one question is it illegal for someone to secretly tape record a conversation between yourself and them without you knowing,while at work,and that person is a supervisor.I feel that i can press charges for that and if i can i will.If so what is it called and how do i go about to do so?
21/08 21:01:05
Your comment
Comments must be approved before being published. Thank you!
05/02: Unauthorized Recordings - Eavesdropping - Michigan
Perhaps you have wanted to record a phone conversation or video taped someone in your house, and wondered whether this is permitted by law. Alternatively, perhaps you have been the subject of an unauthorized video or telephone recording, and want to know your rights.Both the federal law and Michigan law apply. The federal law is codified at 18 USC 2510, et seq, while Michigan law is codified at MCL 750.539c et seq. The federal law provides for a 5 year felony for recording telephone conversations except in cases in which the state allows only one person to the conversation to consent.
MCL 750.539c provides for a 2 year felony / $2,000.00 fine for wilfully recording a conversation without each party's consent. Under 750.539d, it is also a crime to video record or photograph a person in a "private place", without the person's consent. A private place is one in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy and as such, a place to which the public also has access is not a private place. Accordingly, dissemination of prohibited recordings is also a violation of law with a 5 year felony / $5,000.00 as punishment.
There are exceptions to the law for residences monitored for security purposes unless the monitoring is conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose and this would come with a 2 year felony / $2,000.00 fine which is aggravated for previous convictions. Police officers on duty, common carriers, public utilities, and state correctional facilities are also excepted under the law.
If you have been recorded and want to pursue the matter in court, the civil remedy is codified at 750.539h. You may request an injunction by a court of record prohibiting further eavesdropping, actual damages against the person who eavesdrops, and punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury.
For a more detailed analysis, consider:
Dickerson v. Raphael, 564 NW2d 85 (Mich App 1997)
Sullivan v Gray, 324 NW2d 58 (Mich App 1982)
www.feibleman-law.com/documents/2004_wiretapping_updated.pdf