Digital audio recorder in pocket earns man wiretapping charges

Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:36PM EDT

See Comments (90)

Got a digital voice recorder like one of these? Watch out how you use it or you could land yourself in scorching legal trouble. One man recently found that out the hard way, after he was arrested and discovered to be recording the goings-on with just such a device in his pocket. Not only is he now facing charges for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and trespassing, he's also charged with unlawful wiretapping and possessing a device for wiretapping.

The story goes that one Chi Quang Truong was embroiled in a dispute with a Massachusetts auto service center, which didn't repair his car as quickly as Truong wanted. Truong got into a verbal scuffle with the service shop and the police were called. Apparently Truong was recording all of this -- for reasons unknown -- using a device stowed in his pocket, and cops added the wiretapping charges to his rap sheet during his arrest.

But wait a second: Don't you need a wire to get charged with wiretapping? I thought so too, and the theory here is that since Truong didn't have explicit permission to record the conversation (memories of Linda Tripp), he was slapped with the additional charges. In 12 states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington) you're required to get the permission of all parties on the line before making any kind of recording. In the rest of the country, any single member that's part of the conversation can legally record it without consent from the other parties. And as Network World notes, wiretapping laws largely extend to in-person communications now, so no wire is required.

Still, does the punishment really fit the crime? Wiretapping is a class D felony, and that can mean (based on my admittedly limited understanding of criminal statutes) up to 12 years in prison. While Truong is unlikely to face anything that severe (and, in all probability, will have the wiretapping charges dropped as his prosecution progresses), he probably shouldn't be facing charges for any of this. And "possession of a wiretapping device"? Yikes. Even my iPhone has a voice recorder feature built in. I'm in possession of such a device any time I step out in public.

Check your own pockets, briefcase, purse, or backpack: You might be a criminal!

Comments on Digital audio recorder in pocket earns man wiretapping charges

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 6 Posted by dmg122884 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:34PM EDT Report Abuse

    In my opinion, if you have the legal right to be a party to a conversation (listen to what is said, remember what is said and later discuss what was said) then you should have the right to record the conversation with or without the other party's knowledge. And not to get into politics, but has anyone else noticed that the majority of states on that list lean heavily to the liberal side of the aisle? Coincidence? I think not.

  • 7 Posted by tommy199th on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:37PM EDT Report Abuse

    Just another clear cut case of "Overcriminalization" by our government. For further proof check this article by Brian Walsh of the Heritage Foundation. http://bit.ly/gCC4A But hey, what would the host of less than honorable Assistant US Attorneys do without these laws, maybe have to get a real job?

  • 8 Posted by salmongirrl on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:38PM EDT Report Abuse

    Exactly right caliguy! Without the option to tape a conversation there would be no way to prove abuse and lies from spouses, bosses, and corporations. We'd be completely at the mercy of the "he said she said" trap.

  • 9 Posted by rbwills3 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:43PM EDT Report Abuse

    So does this mean that the police in the 12 states that you mentioned are engaged in illegal wiretapping, since the dash cams on their cars record sound and there has been no 2-party permission given?

  • 10 Posted by erica_ikkan on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:44PM EDT Report Abuse

    I guess half the film makers on YouTube will be going to prison. What an asinine society we live in. Who is making these laws???

  • 11 Posted by ibelieveinu@ymail.com on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    Acutally what the cops did was illegal it is perfectly legal to record conversations in America under certian conditions a person can use a tape recorder ,uneasy situations ,possible con artist ,attemtped rapes,documentaion of public servants. I have all the case numbers in my file if you know this guy tell him to email me at it will take me about to hour or so to locate it but I do have the cases most recetn case numbers ibelieveinu@ymail.com I can give him the Federal Case numbers ,sound like hes got a lock and key case . Note only is tape recording legal it is a fundemental right .You have the right to record whatever goes on around you to ensure your protection and well being.

  • 12 Posted by warrengeo on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:55PM EDT Report Abuse

    I am concerned that this post could be audited by "homeland security". However, since those folks can legally eavesdrop on ANY communication of mine, I think it is audacious that I cannot protect myself in a one-on-one dispute by recording the dispute for future reference. As a progressive Democrat, I am outraged that my "rights" are consistently being eroded. When the FBI showed up at our home to question my father about his alleged relationship to Cuban "gunrunners" he was wise enough to place a reel to reel recorder in front of them. They left without their interview.

  • 13 Posted by jazzyjd5 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:56PM EDT Report Abuse

    It is time that the voters cast their ballots in a 45 caliber manner. Take out those who are ruining the American way of life and take back our country. The place to start are the congressional offices.

  • 14 Posted by pixnay on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:56PM EDT Report Abuse

    My creepy neighbor often videotapes me and my children in my Connecticut yard (against my wishes). I was told by the police this is legal, nothing they can do. So why is the recording device in the pocket illegal?

  • 15 Posted by bella77427 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:56PM EDT Report Abuse

    Thank God for privacy/trespass laws. Why? I have seen where persons have recorded others without consent and edited same data thus distorting the context for malicious intent.

  • 16 Posted by stevenbarnstormer on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:57PM EDT Report Abuse

    Let's not get into the whole "Liberal-Conservative" thing. Both philosophies support this kind of stupid legislation. Do we even need to mention the Bush Administration? And I seem to recall Clinton signing some bill that allowed for exploration and/or usage of the "face recognition" software whiich is now a reality. It gets even worse. Now the airlines and the govt are using "mood recognition" techniques to profile potential terrorists, which is the biggest pile of BS. It's not about Libs and Cons, it's about Big Brother. Support common sense.

  • 17 Posted by alkasi2000 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:59PM EDT Report Abuse

    just another stupid law, made by even less intelligent politicians. This whole country sucks ass.

  • 18 Posted by the_worlok on Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:09PM EDT Report Abuse

    It's good to stay out of those states. It figured that Taxachussetts is one of the Soviet American states listed. I live in NJ, a burgeoning little soviet republic, but it is legal to do that in NJ still, and I had a lawyer tell me that. As long as it's not a phone conversation it's kosher, but not in the states listed in the article I guess...

  • 19 Posted by greenfern12000 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:12PM EDT Report Abuse

    I sure hope this article is incorrect!! If recording a conversation (without the permission of other participants) is illegal, it essentially opens the way for criminals and ordinary dishonest people to do whatever they please, whenever they please, to whomever they please, without fear of being found guilty. Might as well say "let the bullies win". Might as well throw out most of our laws and let the chaos begin, if honest folks are stripped of this means to prove what REALLY happened between them and a dishonest person.

  • 20 Posted by rnegade00 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:14PM EDT Report Abuse

    The article is slightly off. Here in PA, only 1 party has to be informed of the wiretapping/recording.

  • 21 Posted by drjpruett on Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:14PM EDT Report Abuse

    Big Brother has been here for a while now

  • 22 Posted by suedunem on Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:18PM EDT Report Abuse

    With regarding to regarding a conversation one is having with a business (ie; in a dispute), I am on the fence as to whether or not all people need to know about the recording. On a private level (ie: a personal conversation between two people), I completely agree that everyone needs to know if the conversation is being recorded. There is nothing quite as disconcerting as believing you are having a private conversation, only to have it "replayed" for a third party. It is a type of eavesdropping and the states that require consent are right on the ball.

  • 23 Posted by hitman142002 on Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:19PM EDT Report Abuse

    Remember that this is only in 12 states. In every other state, YOU are the one person in the conversation who must legally know that the conversation is being recorded. Check your state laws regarding the matter. The real issue is exactly why those 12 states are different than the entire rest of the country. What, exactly, are they trying to HIDE there? Why do they feel it necessary to "protect" everyone from having their conversations recorded?

  • 24 Posted by cardcarrier@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:20PM EDT Report Abuse

    Apropos Linda Tripp et al: She was exempted by Virginia law from having to get Monica's consent to tape their conversation - IF Monica was IN Virginia, right? That wouldn't cover a call going from state to state, or state to federal district, would it? Where was Monica? What did Monica know? When did she know it? Did she give her consent -- to the taping? Serious questions....

  • 25 Posted by secondglow on Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:20PM EDT Report Abuse

    For now, the only way to legally record someone without them knowing is to RECORD THEM WHILE YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN HOME. You can legally record anything you want to in your own home whether a visitor knows it or not.

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment

My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Site Map | Tour | Subscribe to Yahoo! Tech

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.