Gathering Information for Probable Cause Against Your Neighbor

[ChriswUfGator]

One more thing.

While the photography aspect, involving photographing private people on private property without their knowledge or consent, is murky on whether the photos are admissible for LE purposes or whether any liability attaches to the photographer, SPAR's suggestion that people tape-record others is plainly and unarguably illegal under F.S. 934.03.

[sheclown]

Taking pictures of people on their porches only proves that people are on the porches.  It doesn't prove that someone "lives" there.

[AlexS]

SPAR's suggestion that people tape-record others is plainly and unarguably illegal under F.S. 934.03.

How does this work with 934.01 ?
If I talk to someone and record the conversation, wouldn't I then be a consenting party to the conversation ?
PS: Just trying to figure out the legal aspect and not trying to advocate or endorse any recordings.

(4)  To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court.

And 934.02 ?

(2)  "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.

[cindi]

SPAR's suggestion that people tape-record others is plainly and unarguably illegal under F.S. 934.03.

How does this work with 934.01 ?
If I talk to someone and record the conversation, wouldn't I then be a consenting party to the conversation ?
PS: Just trying to figure out the legal aspect and not trying to advocate or endorse any recordings.

(4)  To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court.

And 934.02 ?

(2)  "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.

i think i is illegal if they do not know they are being recorded.  if you tell them ahead of time it is different - maybe? i don't know.

[buckethead]

You should all be at the airshow. A bit of sun and fun could do some good!

[cindi]

it's best to spy on your neighbors when they are all away at airshows.

[ChriswUfGator]

SPAR's suggestion that people tape-record others is plainly and unarguably illegal under F.S. 934.03.

How does this work with 934.01 ?
If I talk to someone and record the conversation, wouldn't I then be a consenting party to the conversation ?
PS: Just trying to figure out the legal aspect and not trying to advocate or endorse any recordings.

(4)  To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court.

And 934.02 ?

(2)  "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.

The bottom line in Florida boils down to each party having to consent, and not just one party. So you're right, that if you were recording a conversation, then obviously yes, you have consented to the recording and you are a party to it. But under Florida law that would still be illegal, unless you had informed the other party to the conversation and they had consented to the recording.

Florida law requires the consent of all parties to a recording, not just one.

[buckethead]

it's best to spy on your neighbors when they are all away at airshows.

Now that depends entirely on what you're hoping to see.

[cindi]

it's best to spy on your neighbors when they are all away at airshows.

Now that depends entirely on what you're hoping to see.

true that. 

[Springfielder]

That's correct, both parties must consent to being recorded in order for it to be legal

[ChriswUfGator]

SPAR's suggestion that people tape-record others is plainly and unarguably illegal under F.S. 934.03.

How does this work with 934.01 ?
If I talk to someone and record the conversation, wouldn't I then be a consenting party to the conversation ?
PS: Just trying to figure out the legal aspect and not trying to advocate or endorse any recordings.

(4)  To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications when none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court.

And 934.02 ?

(2)  "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.

i think i is illegal if they do not know they are being recorded.

Cindi is correct.

If a party being recorded doesn't know they're being recorded and hasn't consented to being recorded, then it is illegal. For it to be legal, they would have to know you are recording them and consent to it.

[samiam]

If someone is running an illegal boarding house. and they are not paying taxes on the income that is produced by that house there is violation of tax laws. Local law enforcement might not be able to help but the IRS could.

[cindi]

aren't taxes what has snagged up some of the biggest crime bosses? 

[ChriswUfGator]

Yeah, just as a random point of legal trivia, that's how they finally got Al Capone (who needs no introduction), and Matthew Ianello (part of the crew that whacked Jimmy Hoffa), along with a bunch of other mob guys. The feds tried nabbing Capone for 1,000 different things, but none of it ever stuck. What finally sent him up river was plain-jane income tax evasion. After all the stuff these mob guys do, who'd have though that'd be what they'd get them for? LOL

[buckethead]

Or that we'd be comparing boarding home owners to them?